6//i/7r 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


y^^ULl^lJ    ^U^t^<?L' 


Shelf. 


BX    942A     .F62    AA    18A9 
Foster,    Randolph   S.    1820- 

1903. 
Objections    to   Calvinism  as 

-i   t-       -i   c  —    —   


OBJECTIONS 


CALVINISM  AS  IT   IS, 


A    SERIES    OP    LETTERS 


ADDRESSED  TO 


UetJ.  N.  £.  nice,  m.  5D., 


net),  ta.  0.  iToster. 


WITH    AN    APPENDIX, 


CONTAINING 


REPLIES   AND  REJOINDERS 


CINCINNATI: 
HITCHCOCK   AND    WALDEN, 

NEW  YORK: 
CARLTON  AND  LANAHAN. 


-4^  [^^1 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1849,  by 

R.  S.  FOSTER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  District  of  Ohio. 


INTKODUCTION. 


The  subject  of  Predestination  has,  for  many  ages,  en- 
gaged the  attention  of  theologians  and  philosophers.  That 
the  world  is  governed  by  fixed  and  permanent  laws,  is 
evident,  even  to  the  casual  observer.  But  by  whom  those 
laws  are  established,  and  how  far  they  extend,  have  been 
matters  of  controversj^  In  the  Christian  world,  all  admit 
that  the  Avill  of  God  is  the  great  source  of  law.  In  the 
arrangements  of  the  vast  systems  of  worlds,  as  well  as  in 
the  formation  of  the  earth,  with  all  its  varied  tribes,  we 
recofjnize  the  hand  of  Him  who  doeth  "his  will  in  the 
heavens  above  and  in  the  earth  beneath."  All  acknowl- 
edge the  existence  of  a  Di\'ine  decree;  but  the  questions 
arise,  Do  all  things  thus  come  to  pass  ?  Are  human  actions 
the  result  of  laws  as  fixed  and  unalterable  as  those  which 
govern  the  movements  of  the  planets?  Is  the  destiny  of 
every  human  being  unchangeably  determined  before  his 
birth,  without  reference  to  foreseen  conduct?  Or  has  the 
mind  a  power  of  choice  ?  can  it  move  freely  within  certain 
specified  limits?  and  will  the  nature  of  its  movements  and 
choice  influence  its  eternal  happiness?  These  are  questions 
which,  in  some  form,  have  exercised  the  highest  powers  of 
the  human  intellect. 

The  Atheistical  school  of  philosophers,  ancient  as  well 
as  modern,  taught  the  doctrine  of  necessity.  With  them, 
matter  is  eternal ;  and  no  designing  mind  superintending  its 
movements,  there  must  be  a  necessity  in  nature.  This  has 
been  differently  expressed  in  diff'erent  ages.  Sometimes  it 
appears  as  the  atomic  theory  of  Democritus  and  Leucippus, 
and,  again,  as  the  Pantheism  of  Spinoza.  But,  whatever 
form  it  may  assume,  it  teaches  that  all  actions  come  to  pass 

3 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

by  necessity,  and  denies  the  responsibility  of  all  beings.  Ii 
annihilates  the  freedom  of  the  human  will,  and  degrades 
intelligence  to  mechanism. 

Another  class  of  philosophers  admits  the  existence  of  a 
Diety,  but  denies  his  special,  superintending  providence 
Such  imagine  the  great  JFirst  Cause  to  be,  according  to  the 
Hindoo  mythology,  in  a  state  of  beatific  repose,  or  to  be 
employed  in  movements  so  transcendently  important,  that 
the  affairs  of  earth  are  neglected,  or  that  he  is  himself 
subject  to  fate. 

The  third  great  class  is  composed  of  such  as  not  only 
admit  the  existence  of  God,  but  who  worship  him  as  the 
supreme  Governor,  and  as  invested  with  all  moral  as  well  as 
natural  perfections.  They  reject  the  doctrine  of  fate  and 
all  necessity,  other  than  that  which  springs  from  the  Divine 
decree.  But  they  differ  as  to  the  extent  of  that  decree. 
This  difference  has  given  rise  to  the  formation  of  sects  and 
parties  in  all  ages,  and  to  controversies  of  the  most  exciting 
character.  Milton,  in  his  Paradise  Lost,  fancies  the  fallen 
angels  engaged  in  discussions  of  this  nature.     They 

"  Reasoned  high 
Of  providence,  foreknowledge,  will,  and  fate; 
Fixed  fate,  free  will,  foreknowledge,  absolute. 
And  found  no  end,  in  wandering  mazes  lost." 

Such,  too,  has  been  the  character  of  many  human  con- 
troversies. One  party  maintains  that  God  decrees  what- 
ever comes  to  pass,  and  that  the  number  of  those  who  are 
to  be  saved  and  of  those  who  are  to  be  lost,  is  definitely 
and  unalterably  determined  from  eternity;  while  others 
teach  that  some  actions  flow  from  man's  free  will,  and  that 
God  gives  man  the  power  to  choose  between  life  and 
death— decreeing  salvation  to  those  who  obey  his  Gospel, 
and  denouncing  death  upon  the  disobedient;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  characters,  and  not  persons,  are  elected.  The 
latter  sentiment,  so  far  as  a  heathen,  ignorant  of  gracious 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

4ifluences,  could  perceive,  is  expressed  by  Plato,  when,  in 
his  treatise  against  the  Atheists,  he  says  that  God  "  devises 
this  in  reference  to  the  whole,  namely,  what  kind  of  a  situ- 
ation everv  thing  which  becomes  of  a  certain  quality  must 
receive  and  inhabit ;  but  the  causes  of  becoming  of  such  a 
quality,  he  hath  left  to  our  own  wills." 

The  Jewish  sects  differed  upon  these,  as  well  as  upon 
other  points  of  doctrine.  The  Essenes  taught  predestina- 
tion in  its  most  severe  form.  The  Sadducees  held  the 
freedom  of  the  will  in  nearly  the  same  manner  as  the  Pela- 
gians have  since  taught;  while  the  Pharisees  endeavored 
to  combine  the  two  systems.  Prideaux  says,  "They  as- 
cribed to  God  and  fate  all  that  is  done,  and  yet  left  to  man 
the  freedom  of  his  will.  But  how  they  made  these  two 
apparent  incompatibles  consist  together,  is  nowhere  suffi- 
ciently explained ;  perchance  they  meant  no  more  than  that 
every  man  freely  chooseth  what  he  is  unalterably  predes- 
tinated to.  But  if  he  be  predestinated  to  that  choice,  how 
freely  soever  he  may  seem  to  choose,  certainly  he  hath  no 
free  will,  because  he  is,  according  to  this  scheme,  unaltera- 
bly necessitated  to  all  that  he  doth,  and  cannot  possibly 
choose  otherwise." 

The  Mohammedans  were,  generally,  rigid  predestinarians. 
With  them,  every  event  in  nature  was  fixed  by  an  absolute 
decree.  The  soldier  could  neither  be  killed  nor  wounded 
until  his  time  had  come.  Hence,  they  acquired  a  reckless- 
aess  of  all  physical  danger,  as  well  as  of  moral  feeling. 
jBut,  even  with  them,  the  mind  rebelled  against  fatalism, 
and  the  sect  of  the  Motazalites,  and  portions  of  other  sects, 
held  the  freedom  of  the  human  will. 

In  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  the  doctrine  of  predes- 
tination, as  extending  to  every  act  and  fixing  the  destiny  of 
every  individual,  without  reference  to  foreseen  faith  or  works, 
was  unknown.  The  early  fathers  teach  no  such  creed. 
They  occasionally  use  the  terms  foreordain,  predestinate, 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

eject,  etc.,  but  they  invariably  use  these  expressions  in  iri*5 
Scriptural  signification  as  employed  by  St.  Paul,  and  not  in 
tne  predestinarian,  or  what  has  since  been  termed  the  Cal- 
vinistic  sense.  This  continued  to  be  the  case  for  the  first 
four  centuries  of  the  Christian  era;  but,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  fifth  century,  the  Pelagian  controversy  arose. 
As  usual  in  controversies,  each  party  ran  into  an  extreme. 
Pelaffius  v/as  ri^-ht  in  teachinor  that  God  willed  all  men  to 
be  saved,  and  in  denying  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation, 
which  had  crept  into  the  Church ;  but  he  erred  greatly 
in  teaching  man's  ability,  without  grace,  to  commence  a 
rehgious  life,  or  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God.  Au- 
gustine, perceiving  his  errors,  held  correctly,  that  man's 
salvation  is  of  grace,  and  that,  apart  from  grace,  he  has  no 
power  to  commence  or  continue  a  religious  career.  But  he 
erred  in  teaching  the  unconditional  election  to  life  of  a 
part  of  the  race,  and  the  damnation  of  the  rest,  including 
some  infants.  Augustine  -was  sustained,  and  his  works  re- 
main to  this  day  standards  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

It  must,  liowever,  be  remarked,  that  Augustine  is  nou 
at  all  times  consistent  in  his  statements.  Hence,  Calvin 
alledges  that  he  had  attributed  to  foreknowledge  that 
which  pertains  only  to  decrees.  His  writings  thus  gave 
rise  to  discussions  almost  interminable.  During  the  prog- 
ress of  the  century  in  which  he  lived,  a  number,  who  were 
termed  Predestinarians,  advocated  the  doctrine  of  uncondi- 
tional election  and  reprobation,  to  the  utter  denial  of  free 
will.  Again:  in  the  ninth  century,  Godeschalcus,  a  Saion 
monk,  having  taught  that  God  had  predestinated  some  to 
eternal  death,  a  violent  controversy  arose,  heightened  by 
the  enmity  which  existed  between  him  and  Rabanus,  who 
was  his  abbot.  The  doctrines  of  Godeschalcus  were  con- 
demned by  three  councils,  and  he  was  cruelly  cast  into 
prison.  But,  afterward,  his  sentiments  were  approved  by 
three  councils,  and  at  his  death  the  controversy  ceased. 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

The  Dominicans,  who  were  for  many  centuries  among  the 
strongest  pillars  of  the  Catholic  Chm-ch,  and  to  whom  the 
machinery  of  the  Inquisition  was  committed,  were  strict 
predestinarians.  So,  also,  were  the  Augustinians  and  the 
Jansenists.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Jesuits,  who  became 
the  most  indefatigable  enemies  of  the  Reformation,  while 
they  professed  to  believe  with  Augustine,  yet  were  the 
advocates  of  free  will.  With  all  its  professed  unity,  the 
Ptoman  Church  has  been  as  much  divided  upon  these  ques- 
tions as  the  Protestant.  At  present  the  Jesuitic  theology 
is  prevalent.  They  deny  that  they  are  either  Calvinistic  or 
Arminian.  But,  while  they  profess  to  accord  with  St.  Au- 
gustine, they  have,  no  doubt,  departed  far  from  his  views. 
At  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the  great  reformers  drew 
much  from  St.  Augustine.  Luther  was  an  Augustinian 
friar;  and  he  found  the  great  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  so  well  established  by  that  father  against  all  opposers, 
that  he  received  for  a  time  his  views  on  predestination  also. 
On  free  will  he  had  a  sharp  contest  with  Erasmus,  but 
afterward  kept  almost  silent  on  these  perplexing  questions, 
and,  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  strongly  recommended 
Melancthon's  works,  which  taught  a  different  doctrine. 
^The  Lutheran  Church,  receiving  their  impress  from  him, 
hold  only  a  predestination  based  upon  foreknowledge; 
in  this,  strictly  agreeing  with  the  Amiinian  view. )  Melanc- 
thon,  in  the  commencement  of  his  career,  was  a  ligid  Pre- 
destinarian.  In  1525,  writing  of  the  decrees,  he  says: 
"Lastly,  Divine  predestination  takes  away  human  liberty; 
for  all  things  come  to  pass  according  to  Divine  predestina- 
tion— not  only  external  works,  but  also  internal  thoughts, 
in  all  creatures."  He,  however,  in  a  few  years  changed  his 
opinion,  and  struck  out  such  passages  from  his  works.  To 
Cranmer  he  obserred  that  there  had  been,  among  the 
reformers,  "  Stoical  disputations  respecting  fjite,  offensive  in 
their  nature,  and  noxious  in  their  tendency."     In  writing  to 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

Peucer  he  compares  Calvin  to  Zeno,  saying,  *'  Lselius  writes 
to  me,  that  the  controversy  respecting  the  Stoical  fate  is 
agitated  with  such  uncommon  fervor  at  Geneva,  that  one 
individual  is  cast  into  prison  because  he  happened  to  differ 
from  Zeno."  And  near  his  death,  referring  to  the  doctrines 
of  predestination,  he  says  they  are  "monstrous  opinions, 
which  are  contumelious  against  God,  and  pernicious  to 
morals." 

Calvin  became,  among  the  reformers,  the  great  champion 
of  the  decrees,  and  hence  the  system  bears  his  name.  So 
much  importance  did  he  attach  to  these  peculiar  views,  that 
he  scrupled  not  to  apply  the  most  opprobrious  epithets  to 
those  who  refused  to  receive  them.  In  one  of  his  sermons 
he  says,  "The  enemies  of  God's  predestination  are  stupid 
and  ignorant,  and  the  devil  hath  plucked  out  their  eyes." 
Af»"ain :  "  Such  men  fight  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  like  mad 
beasts,  and  endeavor  to  abolish  the  holy  Scripture.  There 
is  more  honesty  in  the  Papists  than  in  these  men ;  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  Papists  is  a  great  deal  better,  more  holy, 
and  more  agreeable  to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  than  the  doc- 
trine of  those  vile  and  wicked  men,  who  cast  down  God's 
holy  election — these  dogs  that  bark  at  it,  and  swine  that 
root  it  up."  And  in  another  sermon  he  says,  "The  devil 
liath  no  fitter  instruments  than  those  who  fight  against 
predestination." 

Sentiments  such  as  these,  taught  to  the  youth  preparing 
for  the  ministry,  could  not  fail  to  have  an  influence  in  pro- 
moting a  persecuting  spirit.  These  ministers  were  scattered 
among  the  reformed  Churches  over  Europe,  and  soon  began 
to  exhibit  their  disposition.  Liberty  of  opinion  was  tolera- 
ted for  a  time;  but,  early  in  the  succeeding  century,  the 
famous  Synod  of  Dort  was  assembled,  in  which  the  opinions 
of  the  Remonstrants,  or  Arminians,  were  condemned  as 
heresy.  Pious  and  influential  ministers  were  banished  from 
the  land,  many  were  thrown  into  prison,  while  some  of 


INTRODUCTION-.  9 

their  patrons  were  put  to  death,  Macaulay  well  charac- 
terizes the  proceedings  of  this  synod,  as  manifesting  "gross 
injustice,  insolence,  and  cruelty." 

A  reaction  followed.  Arminianism  and  a  modified  Cal- 
vinism, known  afterward  as  Baxterianism,  gained  ground 
upon  the  Continent,  and  rapidly  pervaded  the  Anglican 
Church.  In  the  days  of  Wesley,  a  strong  effort  was  made 
to  suppress  Arminian  views.  Calvinism  being  made  a  test 
of  office  in  the  college  in  which  they  were  engaged,  Mr. 
Benson  was  removed,  and  Mr.  Fletcher  resigned.  A  dis- 
tinguished clergyman,  Mr.  Shirley,  issued  a  circular,  re- 
questing a  meeting  of  ministers,  to  go  in  a  body  to  Mr. 
Wesley's  ensuing  conference,  and  demand  that  he  and  his 
preachers  should  retract  their  sentiments.  But,  though  the 
spirit  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  was  aroused,  the  civil  power 
to  punish  could  not  be  employed.  Mr.  W.  continued  to 
preach,  and  Mr.  Fletcher,  in  his  defense,  issued  those  mas- 
terly Checks,  which  displayed  at  once  his  superior  genius, 
and  the  strength  of  the  cause  which  he  had  espoused. 

In  America,  in  early  days,  the  religious  sentiment  was, 
generally,  Calvinistic.  Such  Churches  were  supported  by 
law,  in  the  New  England  states,  until  a  late  period.  The 
colleges  and  seminaries  were,  also,  principally  under  their 
control.  Hence,  the  introduction  of  Methodism  gave  rise 
to  numerous  controversies.  In  the  midst,  however,  of 
repeated  conflicts,  Arminianism  has  increased,  until  now 
a  majority  of  members  in  the  Union  belong  to  Churches 
which  reject  the  Calvinistic  faith.  Of  the  Churches,  too, 
which  are  called  Calvinistic,  at  least  one-half  have  embraced 
what  is  termed  "  New  School "  theology.  Whatever  may 
be  the  merits  or  demerits  of  that  system,  the  "  Old  School  *' 
assert  that  it  is  a  departure,  not  only  to  Arminianism,  but 
to  Pelagianism. 

For  some  years  past  there  had  been  a  growing  union 
among  Christians;   controversies  were  less  frequent;   and 


10  INTRODUCTION'. 

the  Presbyterian  and  Methodist  Chui'ches  were  living  m 
peace  and  haraiony.  Recently,  however,  repeated  attacks, 
of  the  most  virulent  character,  have  been  made  upon  the 
doctrines  and  usages  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
For  a  time  this  was  patiently  borne;  but  as  forbearance 
only  seemed  to  increase  the  frequency  and  severity  of  the 
attacks,  a  notice  of  the  principles  involved  became  necessary. 
The  letters  contained  in  the  present  volume  were  written 
by  Rev.  R.  S.  Foster,  A.  M.,  a  member  of  the  Ohio  annual 
conference,  who  has  charge  of  Wesley  Chapel  in  this  city. 
A  number  of  them  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  Western 
Christian  Advocate;  and,  at  the  earnest  solicitations  of 
many  readers,  he  was  induced  to  present  them  in  a  more 
permanent  form.  Their  style  is  clear  and  forcible,  and  the 
process  of  argumentation  strictly  logical.  As  the  reader 
will  perceive,  he  has  limited  himself  to  two  principal  points. 
First,  to  show  what  are  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism ;  and, 
secondly,  to  state  the  prominent  objections  to  them.  This 
work  has  been  well  executed,  by  gi^^ng  the  standard  au- 
thors in  their  own  language,  and  thus  preventing  any  candid 
o.pponent  from  making  the  charge  of  misrepresentation. 
The  book  will  thus  be  very  valuable  to  such  as  have  not 
access  to  extensive  libraries,  or  who  have  not  time  to  examine 
for  themselves  the  various  writers  here  quoted.  The  objec- 
tions are  distinctly  and  explicitly  stated,  and  the  intelligent 
reader  will,  we  think,  be  fully  convinced  that  they  are  well 
sustained.  We  commend  the  volume  as  one  of  great  meiit, 
to  such  as  are  perplexed  upon  the  subject  of  predestination. 
We  doubt  not  that  many,  after  perusing  these  pages,  will 
fully  acquiesce  with  Calvin,  in  terming,  as  he  did,  the  de- 
cree of  predestination,  a  "horrible  decree." 

M.  Simpson. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION;  .        Page  3 

CHAPTER   I. 
Origin  and  Design  of  the  Work,  ...  .13 

CHAPTER   II. 
God's  Eternal  Decrees,  ....  ,        .      &1 

CHAPTER    III. 
Election  and  Reprobation,      .         .         .         .        •  6SJ 

CHAPTER   IV. 
The  Atonement .110 

CHAPTER   V. 
Effectual  Calling, IGO 

CHAPTER   VI. 
Final  Perseverance,         .......  174 

CHAPTER   VII. 
The  Heathen  World, 200 

CHAPTER   VIII. 
The  Will, 214 

APPENDIX. 

Rkplies  and  Rejoinders,  ,        .        .  247 


OBJECTIONS 
CALVINISM    AS    IT    IS. 

CHAPTER   I. 

ORIGIN    AND    DESIGN    OF   THE    WORK. 

Stay,  reader,  for  a  moment.  The  author  would  speak 
with  you.  Some  explanations  may  be  of  service,  befor*5 
you  commence  the  perusal  of  the  following  pages.  They 
shall  be  brief  and  few. 

This  book  is  the  creature  of  circumstance.  It  had  never  ; 
existed,  but  for  reasons  over  which  the  author  himself  ^ 
had  no  control.  He  wrote  because  it  seemed  necessary 
to  write — not  because  he  had  any  ambition  for  authorship. 
He  made  a  book,  not  with  "  intention  of  forethought,"  but 
almost  before  he  was  aware  of  it,  and  without  any  prepense 
whatever.  The  Church,  of  which  he  is  a  humble  and  ob- 
scure minister,  had  been  long  and  grievously  assailed  by 
one  of  the  principal  organs  of  a  sister  denomination — her 
doctrines  and  usages  held  up  to  public  odium,  as  perverted 
by  the  pen  of  misrepresentation — her  influence  for  piety 
questioned,  and  whatever  was  peculiar  to  her  organization 
ridiculed  and  calumniated.  And  this  ungenerous  course 
was  commenced  and  pursued  by  an  accredited  champion,  at 
a  time  when  peace  and  Christian  union  had  long  existed — 
against  remonstrances  on  our  part,  and  published  depre- 
cations of  the  consequences  which  were  certain  to  ensue. 
We  endured  for  a  time.  But  this  only  seemed  to  whet  the 
envenomed  appetite  of  an   adversary  who   seemed   intent 

13 


14  ORIGIN  AND  DESIGN   OF  THE  WORK.  |  CHAP.  I. 

to  aevoui  us.  The  greater  our  reluctance,  the  greater  hie 
ferocity.  It  now  seemed,  that  to  remain  longer  silent  would 
not  only  be  a  reproach  to  ourselves — a  matter  which,  alonf 
considered,  gave  us  little  conceiii — but  must,  also,  weaken 
the  force,  if  not  penl  the  interests,  of  truth  itself.  It  waf. 
under  such  circumstances  that  the  substance  of  what  is 
contained  in  this  volume  Avas  given  to  the  public,  througl 
one  of  the  journals  of  our  Church,  in  a  series  of  letters, 
addressed  to  the  reverend  gentleman  who  seemed  so  anxious 
to  discuss  our  respective  differences.  This  is  our  apology, 
if  any  is  necessary,  for  sending  to  the  public  a  volume 
which,  it  may  be,  some  unacquainted  with  the  facts  might 
conclude  was  uncalled  for.  Truth  and  religion  required  it. 
The  time  had  come  when  the  real  issues  needed  to  be 
stated,  and  truth  vindicated. 

The  object  of  the  author  has  not  been  to  discuss  fully 
the  doctrines  peculiar  to  Calvinism — not  to  present  the 
counter  views  of  Arminians — nothing  of  the  kind:  it  loas 
simply  to  present  a  statement  of  Calvinism,  and  objectionG 
thereto-^not  to  examine  its  defense — not  to  build  up  an 
opposite  system — not  to  contrast  it  with  other' schemes — 
simply  to  state  it,  and  deduce  its  consequences — believing 
that  these  Consequences  are  sufficient  to  overthrow  and 
destroy  it.  Had  it  been  our  plan  to  examine  the  arguments 
by  which  Calvinists  are  wont  to  defend  themselves,  we 
could  have  desired  no  easier  a  task  than  their  refutation. 
But  this  has  been  so  ably  and  so  often  done,  that  we  find 
no  occasion  to  repeat  it.  The  scheme  falls  under  the  weight 
of  its  consequences — it  matters  not  what  its  defense  is.  Its 
consequences  prove  that  it  is  utterly  false;  and  no  argu- 
ment can,  therefore,  prove  it  true. 

The  statement  herein  made  of  Calvinism,  you  will  find  in 
the  progress  of  your  examination,  is  in  no  single  instance 
the  prejudiced  and  ex  parte  statement  of  the  author  himself, 
but  always  the  statement  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 


CHAP.  I.]  ORIGIN  AND  DESIGN  OF  THE  WORK.  15 

the  renowned  and  distinguished  advocates  of  the  system,  in 
their  own  language,  fully  and  fairly  quoted.  No  author 
has  been  at  the  pains  to  quote  so  largely  and  variously. 
Having  derived  our  statements  from  their  own  standards. 
Vie  deduce  the  consequences.  You  will  judge  whether  the 
consequences  are  legitimate  or  not;  and  whether,  if  legiti- 
mate, they  are  fatal  to  the  system.  This  is  all  you  have  to 
do.  If  Calvinism  is  what  its  friends  here  represent  it  to 
be,  and  its  consequences  what  I  show  them  to  be,  you  must 
decide  in  your  own  mind  upon  the  merits  of  the  system. 

It  may  be  that  this  volume  will  find  its  way  into  the 
hands  of  some  who  have  long  cherished,  and  still  do  cherish, 
respect  for  the  system  it  is  intended  to  expose.  To  such 
may  I  say  a  word.  Read  this  book,  if  you  shall  be  induced 
to  read  it  at  all,  candidly  and  without  feelings  of  resent- 
ment or  prejudice.  Be  assured  that,  however  plainly  the 
author  may  have  spoken,  toward  you  he  entertains  none 
but  sentiments  of  kindness;  his  object  is  not  to  wound  and 
afflict,  but  purely  to  defend  the  truth.  Let  not  the  charge 
of  misrepresentation  blind  you.  You  are  men — ^judge  for 
yourselves.  You  will  find  that  the  author  has  made  no 
representations  at  all — that  these  are  all  and  wholly  taken 
from  your  own  standards.  He  is  only  responsible  for  the 
construction  he  has  given  to  them,  and  the  consequences  he 
has  drawn.  You  will  judge  of  these.  I  admit  that  you 
have  been  taught  different  views,  and  you  have  heard  these 
consequences  denied;  but,  will  this  satisfy  you?  Do  you 
not  see  that,  though  disclaimed  and  denied,  they  still  stand 
against  you,  unanswered — unanswerable?  The  premises 
are  yours — the  conclusions  you  cannot  escape.  Kead  as  a 
Christian  only  desirous  for  the  truth,  and  dare  nobly  to 
follow  the  truth  wherever  she  points  the  way. 

Toward  the  Presbyterian  Church,  I  have  cherished  sen- 
timents of  the  profoundest  attachment  from  ray  early 
boyhood.     These  sentiments  have  grown  up  with  me  to 


16  ORIGIN  AND  DESIGN  OF  THE  WORK.  [CUAP.  I. 

manhood — they  remain  to  this  hour.  In  her  communion 
are  many  personal  friends  and  relatives,  and  among  her 
ministers  are  some  dear  to  me  as  my  own  brothers.  In 
despite  of  her  errors,  I  here  record  my  firm  persuasion  that 
she  has  many  surpassing  excellences — many  which  my  own 
Church  may  well  and  wisely  emulate.  But  that  her  creed 
is  essentially  erroneous,  and  that  in  important  points,  I  have 
always  believed,  and  now  believe  more  firmly  than  ever 
before,  having  examined  the  subject  more  thoroughly.  My 
reasons  for  this  belief  are  hereafter  given.  Because  of  this 
attachment,  and  lest  it  might  wound  personal  friends,  but 
much  more,  lest  it  might  wound  some  friend  of  the  Savior, 
I  have  regretted  constantly  the  necessity  of  discussing  the 
subject ;  but,  still  believing  that  truth  is  better  than  error — 
more  pleasing  to  God  and  more  beneficial  to  the  world, 
however  painful  the  process  of  quarrying  it — I  have  spoken 
plainly,  and,  I  trust,  in  the  fear  of  God,  on  its  behalf. 

If,  on  examination,  you  shall  find  Calvinism  liable  to  the 
charges  herein  preferred  against  it,  and  if  your  reason,  and 
conscience,  and  religion,  and  nature  itself  revolt  at  it,  then 
it  becomes  you  to  inquire  whether,  through  the  pretense  of 
not  believing  it  yourself,  of  its  not  being  taught  by  your 
ministers  generally,  of  its  being  greatly  modified — whether, 
because  of  any  or  all  of  these  reasons,  you  can  safely 
continue,  with  your  influence,  to  bolster  the  system,  and 
propagate  its  existence  and  influence  among  men.  May  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church  bless  you  with  right  views  and 
feelings,  and  bring  you  to  a  wise  and  judicious  conclusion! 

The  plan  of  this  book,  it  is  believed,  is  entirely  new,  at 
least  so  far  as  the  writer  is  informed;  and  so  supplies  a 
desideratum  on  the  controverted  questions  introduced.  The 
subject  is  brought  more  directly  before  the  reader  by  copi- 
ous quotations,  and  the  objections  presented  in  a  more 
condensed  and  direct  form,  than  in  any  other  of  the  numer- 
ous and  superior  works  written  on  it.     The  reader  is  thus 


CHAP.  I.]  ORIGIN  AND  DESIGN  OF  THE  WORK.  17 

enabled  to  see  what  Calvinism  is — without  being  confused 
and  distracted  by  prejudiced  statements — as  held  and 
taught  by  its  own  expounders,  and,  at  the  same  time,  what 
are  the  difficulties  alledged  by  its  opposers,  as  sufficient  to 
discredit  it,  and,  whether  friendly  or  hostile  to  it,  will  be 
aided  to  come  to  a  candid  conclusion  on  the  merits  of  the 
question. 

It  will  be  found  that  the  difficulties  brought  against  the 
system  in  these  pages,  are  mainly  derived  from  the  logical 
consequences  resulting  from  it,  and  the  undoubted  antag- 
onism of  such  consequences  to  the  word  of  God,  the  nature 
of  man,  and  the  universal  persuasion  and  consciousness  of 
mankind.  This  course  was  preferred  by  the  author,  because 
it  was  less  trodden,  and,  upon  the  whole,  as  he  believes, 
more  convincing  and  conclusive.  It  could  have  been  shown, 
as  it  has  been  triumphantly  many  times — confining  the 
argument  to  the  Scripture  limits — that  Calvinism  is  not 
taught  therein,  and  that  an  opposite  system  is;  but  this 
was  made  incidental  to  our  main  object — which  was  to 
show  that  consequences  so  revolting  inevitably  result  from 
it,  as  to  prove  him  guilty  of  blasphemy  who  charges  it 
upon  the  word  of  God ;  or,  rather,  as  to  make  it  impossible  V 
for  any  to  believe  or  pretend  any  thing  so  dreadful.  It  is  ^ 
assumed  that  what  is  logically  false  cannot  be  Scripturally  T 
true;  and,  therefore,  that  by  involving  Calvinism  in  logical  ' 
dilemmas,  it  is  overthrown,  and  proved  to  be  unscript-ural, 
as  the  Scriptures  cannot  teach  what  is  logically  false  and 
contradictory.  Whatever  may  be  the  seeming,  the  text 
cannot  teach  what  is  logically  untrue;  or  teaching  it,  il 
teaches  what  is  false,  and  cannot  be  the  word  of  God. 
Whoever,  therefore,  derives  a  system  from  the  Bible  which 
is  false,  and  demonstrably  so  to  human  reason  by  the  pro- 
cesses of  conclusive  logic,  either  derives  from  the  Bible 
what  it  does  not  authorize,  or  he  proves  it  false :  in  other 
words,  he  is  mistaken,  or  the  Bible  is  not  true.     We  attempt, 

2 


18  ORIGIN  AND  DESIGN  OF  THE  WORK.  [cHAP    J. 

m  the  following  pages,  to  show  that  Calvinists  do  this ;  and 
if  our  reasoning  is  conclusive,  it  will  not  be  difficult  for  our 
readers  to  decide  which  horn  of  the  dilemma  to  choose. 

It  may  be  proper  to  state  here,  that,  to  avoid  repetition, 
we  have  been  compelled  to  leave  off  many  strong  objec- 
tions, bearing  against  each  of  the  several  points  discussed; 
and  even  after  much  care,  there  may  seem  to  be  some 
sameness.  The  reason  of  this  is  manifest.  I  have  singled 
out  eight  distinct  points  of  the  Calvinistic  creed,  as  objec- 
tionable. Now,  these  points  are  related,  and,  to  a  great 
extent,  are  susceptible  of  the  same  proof,  and  liable  to  the 
same  objections.  Hence,  in  treating  of  them  separately,  I 
have  necessarily,  in  some  measure,  used  the  same  or  similar 
objections  against  each.  If  the  same  objection  disproves 
all  the  points  separately,  it  is  legitimate  and  proper  to 
employ  it  against  each :  the  interest  of  truth  requires  that 
it  should  be  repeated  whenever  it  bears  against  error.  We 
have,  however,  varied  the  argument  as  much  as  possible, 
and  have  not  repeated  the  same  point  except  where  it  was 
absolutely  necessary. 

To  enable  you  to  determine  the  force  of  our  argument,  as 
a  Avhole,  against  the  system  we  oppose,  I  make  this  addi- 
tional suggestion :  if  one  single  point  of  the  eight  specified 
is  disproved,  Calvinism  is  irreparably  injured — if  one  point 
is  removed,  the  system  is  destroyed — it  is  proved  false,  not 
only  in  that  particular  point,  but,  also,  in  all  correlative 
points — its  dependencies  fall  with  it.  If,  then,  I  have  shown 
difficulties  bearing  upon  any  one  point,  such  as  to  convince 
you  that  it  cannot  be  true,  the  system  is  irretrievably 
involved.  But,  I  ask  you,  has  not,  not  only  one,  but  every 
point  named,  been  successfully  assailed?  Is  it  not  so? 
Can  you  see  an  escape,  not  for  all,  but  for  a  single  one*'* 
But,  again :  I  have  introduced  a  score  of  objections,  or  ap- 
proximating this,  upon  each  point.  Now,  one  objection  is 
sufficient.     If  nineteen  out  of  twenty  are  worthless,  and  a 


CHAP.  I.]  ORIGIN  AND  DESIGN  OF  THE  WORK.  10 

single  one  is  good,  the  objection  stands — the  system  falls. 
A  proposition  cannot  be  true  against  one  valid  objection, 
any  more  than  it  can  against  fifty.  If  one  resist  successful 
assault,  the  proposition  is  ruined.  But,  I  ask  you  in  all  can- 
dor, can  a  single  one  be  assailed  ?  I  have  no  need  of  many 
of  them;  but  can  any  one  take  them  from  my  support? 
You  will  readily  perceive  that  I  have  introduced  a  great  ex- 
cess of  proof.  But  this  shows  you  how  hopeless  the  system 
against  which  such  weight  of  objection  bears — how  much 
it  will  have  to  do,  before  it  is  saved.  It  must  rescue  every 
point  against  every  separate  objection.  And  I  assert  that 
it  cannot  rescue  a  single  point  fiom  a  single  objection. 
Let  my  readers,  as  they  proceed,  attempt  for  themselves  to 
find  an  escape  from  the  consequences  urged,  and  abide  the 
honest  result,  whatever  it  may  be.  If  Calvinism  is  true, 
embrace  it.  If  not,  discard  it.  But,  be  not  misled  by  the 
pretense  that,  notwithstanding  its  difiiculties,  it  is  found  in 
the  word  of  God.  This  is  a  subterfuge  to  escape  the 
necessity  of  examining  logical  consequences — a  lesson,  which, 
you  w^ill  perceive  in  the  appendix,  my  friend  of"  the  defense 
has  learned.  Your  own  judgment  convinces  you,  that  if 
the  system  is  logically  liable,  it  cannot  be  taught  in  the 
word  of  God. 

The  references  made  to  authors  in  quotations,  has,  in  every 
instance,  with  few  exceptions,  been  taken  by  the  writer  him- 
self directly  from  them ;  and  to  those  who  cannot  examine 
for  themselves,  he  insures  their  correctness.  Those  charged 
to  Piscator  and  Twisse  are  taken  from  Mr.  Wesley ;  but  their 
con-ectness  is  not  questioned.  I  have  sought,  in  every 
instance,  to  quote  enough  to  give  the  full  meaning  of  the 
author,  and  have  never  put  a  construction,  knowingly,  not 
intended  by  him.  The  consequences  deduced,  I  admit,  have 
been  disclaimed ;  but  my  readers  must  judge  whether  this 
can  be  done  or  not.  I  give  you  the  premises — you  must 
decide  upon  the  correctness  of  the  deductions. 


"20  ORIGIN  AND  DESIGN  OF  TILE  WORK.  [cHAP.  I, 

[t  is  not  presumed  by  the  author,  either  that  he  has 
succeeded  in  finding  all,  or  the  strongest  objections,  bearing 
against  the  system  he  attempts  to  refute.  Doubtless  there 
are  many  other  and  stronger  ones,  which  a  better  mind 
could  have  discovered,  and  which,  with  more  time  and 
leisure,  the  author  himself  might  have  found ;  but  Avhat  is 
given  will,  we  think,  be  sufficient,  and  we  have  no  fear  but 
what  the  candid  reader  will  agree  with  us,  when  he  shall 
have  thoroughly  perused  the  work.  The  book  was  pre- 
pared amid  the  numerous  and  weighty  labors  of  a  large 
pastoral  charge,  and  that  when  ordinary  duties  were  greatly 
exceeded  by  a  season  of  unparalleled  afl^liction — during  the 
prevalence  of  the  cholera — at  a  time  when,  from  day  to  day 
and  week  to  week,  the  author  was  ministering  to  many  of 
those  who  were  dying  with  that  most  dreaded  scourge,  and 
when  his  own  life,  as  the  life  of  all,  seemed  uncertain  from 
hour  to  hour.  This,  with  the  fact  that  it  never  was  intended 
for  publication  in  volume  form,  will  serve  to  palliate  its  de- 
fects and  extenuate  its  faults. 

The  reader  is  now  prepared  to  set  forward  with  us  in  the 
discussion  of  the  following  pages.  If  he  shall  be  enter- 
tained for  a  few  brief  hours,  and  profited  in  any  degree  in 
his  noble  pursuit  of  truth,  we  shall  be  more  than  compen- 
sated for  all  the  toil  we  have  bestowed  in  the  preparation. 
And  may  God,  the  great  Father  of  us  all,  bring  both  writer 
and  reader  to  that  world  of  happiness  and  glory,  where 
ti-uth  shall  be  no  more  invested  with  shade,  but  appear  in 
its  own  brightness,  and  all  shall  see  eye  to  eye,  and  know 
even  as  we  are  known! 


CHAP.  II.J  god's  eternal  DECREES,  21 


CHAPTER   II. 

god's    ETERNAL    DECREES. 

If  the  reader  has  not  considered  the  previous  chapter, 
he  will  do  himself  a  service  to  turn  back  and  give  it  a 
perusal,  before  he  proceeds  to  read  what  follows. 

When  one  man  proposes  to  discuss  the  opinions  of  another 
man,  or  company  of  men,  it  is  of  first  importance  that  he 
understand  the  opinions  w^hich  he  thus  proposes  to  discuss, 
and,  understanding  them  himself,  that  he  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly state  them  to  his  readers.  In  every  discussion,  the 
first  thing  to  be  settled  is  the  precise  point  in  dispute ;  and 
if  this  be  omitted,  the  controversy  must  needs  degenerate 
into  a  mere  idle  logomachy — an  unprofitable  strife  of  words. 

And  it  is  not  always  suflficient  that  the  opinions  of 
an  opponent  be  clearly  stated — when  practicable,  they 
should  be  stated  in  precisely  his  own  language,  that  the 
chances  of  misrepresentation  may  be  as  few  as  possible, 
and  that  the  reader  may  see  the  grounds  upon  which  the 
particular  construction  is  based.  This  is  due  an  opponent — 
it  is  due  the  reader — it  is  due  the  cause  of  truth. 

In  accordance  with  these  views,  I  shall  proceed  at  once 
to  state  the  point,  in  Calvinian  theology,  to  which  I  am 
about  to  object.  And,  to  giv#  the  system,  and  its  advo- 
cates, the  benefit  of  a  candid  and  unprejudiced  statement, 
I  shall  first  quote  the  sections  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
which  regard  it,  and  then  the  interpretations  given  thereto 
by  the  most  eminent  and  accredited  of  its  defenders.  If 
the  reference  to  authors  shall  be  large,  it  will  be  that  we 
may  gain  the  very  best  possible  light  upon  the  point  in 
question.  The  subject  to  be  treated  of  in  this  chapter  is 
"God's  Eternal  Decrees;"  and  upon  this  subject  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  chapter  iii,  sections  i  and  ii,  holds  the 
following  language : 


22  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II 

"  God,  from  all  eternity,  did,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy 
counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass;  yet  so  as  thereby  neither  is 
God  the  author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will 
of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second 
causes  taken  awa}^,  but  rather  estabhshed. 

"Although  God  knows  whatsoever  may  or  can  come  to 
pass  upon  all  supposed  conditions,  yet  hath  he  not  decreed 
any  thing  because  he  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which 
would  come  to  pass  upon  such  conditions." 

This  is  the  article  of  faith.  In  corroboration  and  exe- 
gesis of  it,  I  read  from  the  Larger  Catechism: 

"  What  are  the  decrees  of  God  ? 

"  God's  decrees  are  the  wise,  free,  and  holy  acts  of  the 
counsel  of  his  will,  whereby,  from  all  eternity,  he  hath,  for 
his  own  glory,  unchangeably  foreordained  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass  in  time,  especially  concerning  angels  and  men." 

In  the  exposition  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  by  Rev. 
R.  Shaw,  "revised  and  pubhshed  by  the  Presbyterian 
Board  of  Publication,"  I  read,  treating  of  the  article  of 
faith,  "That  God  must  have  decreed  all  future  things, 
is  a  conclusion  which  necessarily  flows  from  his  fore- 
knowledge, independence,  and  immutability.  The  fore- 
knowledge •  of  God  will,  necessarily,  infer  a  decree ;  for 
God  could  not  foreknow  tJi^at  things  would  be,  unless  he 
had  decreed  they  should  be."  (Exposition  of  the  Con- 
fession, p.  58.) 

"If  God  would  be  an  independent  being,  all  creatures 
must  have  an  entire  dependence  upon  him;  but  ihis  de- 
pendence proves,  undeniably,  that  all  their  acts  must  be 
regulated  by  his  sovereign  will."     (lb.) 

"If  God  be  of  one  mind,  which  none  can  change,  he 
must  have  unalterably  fixed  every  thing  in  his  purpose, 
which  he  effects  in  his  providence."     (lb.,  p.  59.) 

"The  decree  of  God  relates  to  all  future  things,  without 


CHAP.  II.J  god's  eternal  DECREES.  23 

exceptions.      Whatsoever  is  done  in  time,  was  foreoi'dained 
before  the  beginning  of  time^     (lb.,  p.  59.) 

"  The  decrees  of  God  are  absolute  and  unconditional : ! 
he  has  not  decreed  any  thing  because  he  foresaw  it  as 
future,  and  the  execution  of  his  decree  is  not  suspended 
upon  any  condition  which  may  or  may  not  be  performed." 
(lb.,  p.  60.) 

"Nothing  can  happen  but  what  is  subject  to  his  knowl- 
edge, and  decreed  by  his  will.''  (Calvin's  Institutes,  book  i, 
chap,  xiv,  sec.  iii.) 

"If  God  simply  foresaw  the  fates  of  men,  and  did  not 
also  dispose  and  fix  them  by  his  determination,  there  would 
be  room  to  agitate  the  question,  whether  his  providence  or 
foresight  rendered  them  at  all  necessary.  But,  since  he 
foresees  future  events  only  in  consequence  of  his  decree 
that  they  shall  happen,  it  is  useless  to  contend  about  fore- 
knowledge, while  it  is  evident  that  all  things  come  to  pass, 
rather  by  ordination  and  decree."  (Calvin's  Institutes, 
book  iii,  chap,  xiii,  sec.  vi.) 

"  But  what  reason  shall  we  assign  for  his  permitting  it, 
but  because  it  is  his  will?  It  is  not  probable,  however,  that 
man  procured  his  own  destruction  by  the  mere  permission, 
and  without  the  appointment  of  God,  as  though  God  had 
determined  what  he  would  choose  to  be  the  condition  of  the 
principal  of  his  creatures. 

"I  shall  not  hesitate,  therefore,  to  confess  plainly,  witli 
Augustine,  that  the  will  of  God  is  the  necessity  of  things, 
and  that  what  he  has  willed  will  necessarily  come  to  pass." 
(Calvin's  Institutes,  vol  ii,  p.  1*71.) 

"  All  things,  both  beings  and  events,  exist  in  exact  accord- 
ance with  the  purpose,  pleasure,  and  what  is  commonly 
called  the  decree  of  God."     (D wight's  Theology.) 

"The  decrees  of  God  relate  to  all  future  things,  without 
exception.  Whatsoever  is  done  in  time,  was  foreordained 
before  time."     (Dr.  J.  Dick's  Theology.) 


24  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

"Decrees  of  God  are  his  settled  purpose,  whereby  hti 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.  The  opinion  that 
whatever  occurs  in  the  world  at  large,  or  the  lot  of  private 
individuals,  is  the  result  of  previous  and  unalterable  ar- 
rangement by  that  supreme  Power  which  presides  over 
nature,  has  always  been  held  by  many  of  the  vulgar,  and 
has  been  believed  by  speculative  men.  The  ancient  Stoics, 
Zeno  and  Chrysippus,  whom  the  Jewish  Essenes  seem  to 
have  followed,  asserted  the  existence  of  a  Deity,  that, 
acting  wisely,  but  necessarily,  contrived  the  general  system 
of  the  world ;  from  which,  by  a  series  of  causes,  whatever 
is  now  done  in  it,  unavoidably  results.  Mohammed  intro- 
duced into  his  Koran  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestina- 
tion of  the  course  of  human  affairs.  He  represents  life 
and  death,  prosperity  and  adversity,  and  every  event  that 
befalls  a  man  in  this  world,  as  the  result  of  a  previous 
determination  of  the  one  God,  who  rules  over  all.  Augus- 
tine, and  the  whole  of  the  earliest  reformers,  but  especially 
Calvin,  favored  this  doctrine.'"     (Buck.) 

"The  characteristical  feature  of  the  Calvinistic  system  is 
that  entire  dependence  of  the  creature  upon  the  Creator, 
which  it  uniformly  asserts,  by  considering  the  will  of  the 
supreme  Being  as  the  cause  of  every  thing  that  now  exists 
or  that  is  to  exist  at  any  future  time."     (Hill's  Divinity.) 

"The  supreme  Being  selects  those  single  objects  and 
those  combinations  of  objects  which  he  chooses  to  bring 
into  existence;  and  every  circumstance  in  the  manner  of 
the  existence  of  that  which  is  to  be>  thus  depending  en- 
tirely on  his  will,  is  known  to  him,  because  he  decreed  it 
should  be."     (Hill.) 

"Every  action  and  motion  of  every  creature  is  governed 
by  the  hidden  counsel  of  God,  so  that  nothing  can  come 
to  pass,  but  was  ordained  of  him. 

"All  things  come  to  pass  by  his  ordination  and  decree." 
(Calvin.) 


oiiAi*.  II.  j  god's  eternal  decrees.  2£» 

"But,  since  he  forsees  future  events  only  in  consequence 
of  his  decree  that  they  shall  happen,  it  is  useless  to  contend 
about  foreknowledge,  while  it  is  evident  that  all  things  come 
to  pass  rather  by  ordination  and  decree."  (Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes, vol.  i,  p.  170.) 

"Reason  and  revelation  are  in  perfect  unison  in  assuring 
us,  that  God  is  the  supreme,  independent,  first  cause,  of 
whom  all  secondary  and  inferior  causes  are  no  more  than 
the  effects."     (Toplady  on  Predestination,  p.  17.) 

In  this,  and  the  following  quotations  from  Toplady,  we 
have  also  the  sentiments  of  Zanchius,  as  Toplady  but  trans- 
lates Zanchiusp 

"It  may  seem  absurd  to  human  wisdom,  that  God  should 
harden,  blind,  and  dehver  up  some  men  to  a  reprobate 
sense — that  he  should  first  deliver  them  over  to  evil,  and 
then  condemn  them  for  that  evil ;  but  the  believing,  spiritual 
man  sees  no  absurdity  in  all  this,  knowing  that  God  would 
be  never  a  whit  less  good,  ei:en  though  he  should  destroy  all 
men."     (Toplady  on  Predestination,  p.  53.) 

"Though  he  [God]  may  be  said  to  be  author  of  all  the 
actions  done  by  the  wicked,  yet  he  is  not  the  author  of 
them,  in  a  moral,  compound  sense,  as  they  are  sinlul,  but 
physically  simply,  and  sensu  divisQ,  as  they  are  mere 
actions,  abstractly  from  all  consideration  of  the  goodness 
or  badness  of  them."     (lb.,  p.  54.) 

"Hence,  we  see  that  God  does  not  immediately  and  ^^^r 
se  infuse  iniquity  into  the  wicked,  but  powerfully  excites 
them  to  action,  and  withholds  those  gracious  influences 
of  his  Spirit,  without  which  every  action  is  necessarily 
evil."     (lb.,  p.  55.) 

"Every  action,  as  such,  is  undoubtedly  good,  it  being  an 
actual  exertion  of  those  operative  powers  given  us  by  God 
for  that  very  end.  God  may,  therefore,  be  the  author  of 
all  actions,  and  yet  not  be  the  author  of  evil."     (Ib.,^.  66.) 

"Whatever  things  God  wills  or  does,  are  not  willed  and 
3 


26  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

(lone  by  hira,  because  they  were,  in  their  own  nature, 
and  previously  to  his  willing  them,  just  and  right,  or  be- 
cause, from  their  intrinsic  fitness,  he  ought  to  will  and  do 
them;  but  they  are,  therefore,  just,  right,  and  proj)er, 
because  he  is  holiness  itself,  wills  and  does  them."  (lb., 
p.  63.) 

"We  make  God  the  arbiter  and  governor  of  all  things, 
who,  in  his  own  wisdom,  has,  from  the  remotest  eternity, 
decreed  what  he  would  do,  and  now,  by  his  own  poioer^ 
executes  what  he  has  decreed.  Whence  we  assert,  that 
not  only  the  heavens,  and  the  earth,  and  inanimate  crea- 
tures, but  also  the  deliberations  and  volitiwis  of  men,  are 
so  governed  by  his  providence  as  to  be  directed  to  the  end 
appointed  by  it."     (Calvin's  Institutes,  vol.  i,  p.  191.) 

"  It  should  be  considered  as  indubitably  certain,  that  all 
the  revolutions  visible  in  the  world  proceed  from  the  secret 
exertion  of  the  Divine  power.  What  God  decrees  must 
necessarily  come  to  pass."     (lb.,  vol  i,  p.  194.) 

"I  admit  more  than  this:  even  that  thieves,  homicides, 
and  other  malefactors,  are  instruments  of  Divine  providence, 
whom  the  Lord  uses  for  the  execution  of  the  judgments 
which  he  has  appointed."     (lb.,  p.  200.) 

"They  consider  it  absurd  [they  whose  views  Calvin 
opposes]  that  a  man  should  be  blinded  by  the  will  and 
command  of  God,  and  afterward  be  punished  for  his 
blindness.  They,  therefore,  evade  the  difficulty,  that  it 
happens  only  by  the  permission,  and  not  by  the  will  of 
God;  but  God  himself,  by  the  most  unequivocal  declara- 
tions, rejects  this  subterfuge.  That  men,  however,  can 
effect  nothing,  but  by  the  secret  will  of  God,  and  can 
deliberate  on  nothing,  but  what  he  has  previously  decreed, 
a  ad  determined  by  his  secret  direction,  is  proved  by  ex- 
])iess  and  innumerable  testimonies."     (lb.,  p.  211.) 

"  "rtie  whole  may  be  summed  up  thus :  that,  as  the  will 
of  God  is  said  to  be  the  cause  of  all  things,  his  providence 


CHAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  27 

is  establislied  as  the  governor  in  all  the  counsels  and  works 
of  men;  so  that  it  not  only  exerts  its  power  in  the  elect, 
who  are  influenced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  compels  the 
co?npliance  of  the  reprobates.'^     (lb.,  p.  215.) 

*'  God's  sovereign  decree  is  the  first  link,  his  unalterable 
decree  tha  second,  and  his  all  active  providence  the  third, 
in  the  great  chain  of  causes.  What  his  will  determined, 
that  his  decree  established,  and  his  providence,  either  me- 
diately or  immediately,  eflPects.  His  will  was  the  adorable 
spring  of  all,  his  decree  marked  out  the  channel,  and  his 
providence  directs  the  stream.  If  so,  it  may  be  objected, 
that  whatever  is,  is  right.  Consequences  cannot  be  helped." 
(Toplady  on  Predestination,  p.  19.) 

"But  does  not  this  doctrine  tend  to  the  establishment  of 
fatahty?  Supposing  it  even  did,  were  it  not  better  to  be 
a  Christian  fatalist,  than  to  avow  a  set  of  loose  Arminian 
principles,  which,  if  pushed  to  their  full  extent,  will 
inevitably  terminate  in  the  rankest  Atheism  ?  For  without 
predestination  there  can  be  no  providence;  and  without  a 
providence,  no  God.  After  all,  what  do  you  mean  by  fate  ? 
If  you  mean  a  regular  succession  of  detennined  events, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  time — an  uninterrupted 
chain,  without  a  single  chasm — all  depending  on  the  eternal 
will  and  continued  influence  of  the  great  first  cause — if  this 
is  fate,  it  must  be  owned  that  it  and  the  Scripture  predes- 
tination are,  at  most,  veiy  thinly  divided,  or,  rather,  entirely 
coalesce."     (lb.,  p.  22.) 

"God's  foreknow^ledge,  taken  abstractedly,  is  not  the 
sole  cause  of  beings  and  events;  but  his  will  and  /ore- 
knowledge  toff ether.''     (lb.,  p.  27.) 

"Whatever  comes  to  pass,  comes  to  pass  by  virtue  of  the 
absolute,  omnipotent  will  of  God,  which  is  the  primary  and 
supreme  cause  of  all  things."     (lb.,  p.  32.) 

"  The  will  of  God  is  so  the  cause  of  all  things  as  to  be 
itself  without  cause;  for  nothing  can  be  the  cause  of  tnat 


28  god's  eternal  decrees.  [ciiAr,  ji. 

which  is  the  cause  of  every  thing.  So  that  the  Divine 
will  is  the  ne  ^o^ws  ultra  of  all  our  inquiries.  When  we 
ascend  to  that,  we  can  go  no  further.  Hence,  we  find 
every  ixiiitter  resolved,  ultimately,  into  the  mere  sovereign 
pleasure  of  God,  as  the  spring  and  occasion  of  whatsoever 
is  done  in  heaven  and  earth.  And  no  wonder  that  the 
will  of  God  should  be  the  mainspring  that  sets  all 
inferior  wheels  in  motion,  and  should  likeAvise  be  the  rule 
by  which  he  goes  in  all  his  dealings  with  his  creatures, 
since  nothing  out  of  God,  exterior  to  himself,  can  possibly 
induce  him  to  will  or  nill  one  thing  rather  than  another." 
(lb.,  p.  34.) 

"God  is  a  being  whose  will  acknowledges  no  cause; 
neither  is  it  for  us  to  prescribe  rules  to  his  sovereign 
pleasure,  or  call  him  to  account  for  what  he  does.  He 
has  neither  superior  nor  equal;  and  his  will  is  the  rule 
of  all  things.  He  did  not  will  such  and  such  things, 
because  they  were,  in  themselves,  right,  and  he  was  bound 
to  v/ill  them ;  but,  therefore,  equitable  and  right,  because 
he  wills  them."     (lb.,  p.  35.) 

"Whatever  man  does  he  does  necessarily,  though  not 
w^ith  any  sensible  compulsion ;  and  that  we  can  only  do 
what  God,  from  eternity,  willed  and  foreknew  we  should." 
(lb.,  p.  41.) 

"That  man  fell  in  consequence  of  the  Divine  decree,  we 
prove  thus.  .  .  .  Surely,  if  God  had  not  willed  the 
fall,  he  could,  and  no  doubt  would,  have  prevented  it.  But 
he  did  not  prevent  it :  er(/o,  he  willed  it.  And  if  he  willed 
it,  he  certainly  decreed  it;  for  the  decree  is  nothing  else 
but  the  seal  and  ratification  of  his  will.  He  does  nothing 
hut  what  he  decreed,  and  he  decreed  nothing  which  he  did 
not  will ;  and  both  will  and  decree  are  absolutely  eternal, 
though  the  execution  of  them  both  be  in  time."     (lb.,  p.  84.) 

"Now,  it  is  self-evident,  that  if  he  [God]  knows  sll  things 
beforehand,  he  either  doth  approve  of  tliem,  or  he  doth 


CHAP.  II. J  god's  eternal  decuees.  29 

not  approve  of  tliem;  that  is,  he  either  is  willing  they 
should  be,  or  he  is  not  willing  they  should  be.  But  to  will 
that  they  should  be,  is  to  decree  them. 

''The  Arminians  ridicule  the  distinctions  between  the 
secret  and  revealed  will  of,  or,  more  properly  expressed, 
between  the  decree  and  law  of  God;  because  we  say  he 
may  decree  one  thing  and  command  another.  However,  if 
they  Avill  call  this  a  contradiction  of  wills,  we  know  that 
there  is  such  a  thing ;  so  that  it  is  the  greatest  absurdity  to 
dispute  about  it.  We  know  that  God  willed  that  Pharoah's 
heart  should  be  hardened,  and  yet  that  the  hardness  of  his 
heart  was  sin."     (Edwards,  vol.  v,  p.  25.) 

"All  the  actions  of  men,  even  those  which  the  Scripture 
holds  forth  to  our  abhorrence,  are  represented  as  being  com- 
prehended in  the  great  plan  of  Divine  providence.  I  du 
not  mean  merely  that  all  the  actions  of  men  are  foreseen 
by  God — of  this  the  predictions  in  Scripture  offer  evidence 
which  even  the  Arminians  admit  to  be  incontrovertible— 
but  I  mean  that  the  actions  of  men  are  foreseen  by  God, 
not  as  events  independent  of  his  will,  but  as  originating  in 
his  determination,  and  fidfilling  his  purpose."  (Hill,  vol. 
v,  p.  '71. 

Any  number,  almost,  of  similar  quotations  might  be 
added  to  the  list,  but  it  is  unnecessary :  all  the  standard 
Calvinistic  authors  since  the  days  of  Augustine,  some  with 
greater  and  others  with  less  caution,  express  themselves 
upon  this  point  in  about  the  same  manner.  We  cannot  SHy 
60  much  for  their  uniformity  when  it  comes  to  the  details 
of  explanation  and  defense — ^here,  indeed,  truth  constrains 
us  to  say,  we  find  what  appears  to  our  mind  great  confusion, 
perplexity,  and  contradiction,  arising  out  of  the  difficulties 
of  the  doctrine;  and  if  we  should  be  unfortunate  in  noi, 
precisely  apprehending  it,  I  hope  it  will  not  be  ascribed  to 
willful  blindness,  seeing  that  its  friends  differ  so  much  in 
regard  to  it. 


30  GOD  S  ETERNAL  DECREES.  [cHAP.  II 

If  I  understand  the  meaning  of  the  above  quotations  at 
all  —and  the  language  is  so  plain  and  unambiguous  that  it 
would  certainly  be  difficult  to  misunderstand,  particularly 
when  taken  in  connection  with  other  parts  of  the  Calvinistic 
system — it  may  thus  be  summed  up : 

1.  Whatsoever  comes  to  pass  in  time  was  decreed  uncon- 
ditionally and  unalterably  before  time. 

2.  Whatsoever  comes  to  pass  in  time,  comes  to  pass 
because  it  was  decreed  before  time. 

3.  Nothing  can  be,  but  what  was  decreed ;  and  what  was 
decreed  cannot  fail  to  be ;  and  it  cannot  fail  to  be,  because 
decreed. 

Having  defined  what  we  understand  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  decrees,  as  held  by  Presbyterians — a  definition  derived 
from  their  own  Confession  of  Faith,  and  numerous  Calvin- 
istic authors  of  great  respectability  and  authority — I  shall 
now  proceed  to  alledge  objections  thereto. 

And,  first,  I  object:  it  renders  the  conclusion  inevitable 
that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  I  employ  the  term  author 
in  the  sense  of  originator  or  cause. 

Do  not,  I  pray  you,  turn  away  from  this  point.  I  know 
it  has  been  often  urged.  I  know  you  have  as  steadily 
denied  it.  I  know,  indeed,  that  you  have  expressly  incor* 
porated  your  protest  in  the  article  of  faith  itself:  "God, 
from  all  eternity,  did,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of 
his  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass;  [and  now  your  disclaimer,]  yet  so  as  thereby 
neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence  offered  to 
the  will  of  the  creature."  But  this  disclaimer  by  no  means 
relieves  my  embarrassment — it  greatly  increases  it,  by 
placing  you  in  the  attitude,  to  my  mind,  of  believing  a 
palpable  contradiction,  namely,  that  God  did  cause  all 
things,  sin  included,  yet  in  such  a  way  that  he  did  not  cause 
sin.  It  is  as  though  you  should  say,  Lycurgus  made  all 
the  laws  of  Sparta,  yet  in  such  a  way,  that  there  weru 


CHAP.  11.]  god's  eternal  decrees.  3J 

many  laws  of  Sparta  which  Lycurgus  did  not  make.  But 
supposing  that  the  absurdity  does  not  strike  your  mind  with 
the  same  force  it  does  mine — or  of  course  you  could  not 
embrace  it — I  shall  more  particularly  present  the  reasons: 
and  perhaps  you  can  assist  me  in  my  conclusions. 

I  reason  thus,  and  the  process  is  exceedingly  brief  and 
simple:  *'God  decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass;"  but  sin 
comes  Id  pass;  therefore,  God  decreed  sin.  **What  God 
decrees,  must  necessarily  come  to  pass;"  but  he  decreed 
sin ;  therefore,  sin  necessarily  comes  to  pass.  "  God's 
decree  is  the  necessity  of  things;"  but  sin  is  something: 
therefore,  God's  decree  is  the  necessity,  or  necessitating 
cause  of  sin.  God's  decree,  being  from  eternity,  preceaes 
all  things ;  and  whatever  is  in  time  results  from  God's  de- 
cree, as  its  cause ;  but  sin  is  in  time ;  therefore,  sin  results 
from  God's  decree,  as  its  cause. 

Let  me  particularize  now.  The  doctrine  is,  that  God 
decreed,  from  eternity,  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  in  time — 
and  that  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure — every  partic- 
ular thing,  event,  and  act.  I  must  insist,  according  to  this, 
that  he  decreed  the  sin  of  every  sinful  man — nay,  each 
particular  sin  of  each  particular  man,  and  all  the  sins  of  all 
men,  long  before  the  human  race  was  created ;  for  if  there 
be  any  sin  which  was  not  decreed,  then  something  has 
come  to  pass  in  time  which  was  not  decreed  from  eternity : 
but  then  your  system  is  in  eiTor,  when  it  says  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass  in  time  was  decreed  from  eternity. 

Do  men  murder,  rob,  blaspheme,  commit  adultery,  incest, 
idolatry  ?  It  was  so  decreed  before  they  were  bom :  they 
CDuM  no  more  avoid  it  than  they  could  resist  the  fiat  of 
Omnipotence,  or  subvert  the  purposes  of  the  Almighty. 
Indeed,  the  decree  to  create  them  was  connected  with  a 
decree,  that  when,  and  as  certainly  as,  created,  they  should 
commit  these  sins,  and  their  creation  was  in  order  to  their 
sins. 


32  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  ii. 

Snail  I  be  told,  that,  though  all  things  come  to  pass  b'* 
decree,  yet  that  the  decree  is  not  the  cause  of  their  occur- 
rence— not  the  efficient  reason  why  they  occur?  Then  1 
desire  to  know  precisely  what  Oalvinists  mean  by  the  terms, 
decree,  predestinate,  foreordain — whether  any  thing  can, 
or  could  possibly  come  to  pass  without  being  decreed — 
whether,  after  being  decreed,  any  thing  can  fail  to  come  to 
pass — whether  decree  proceeds  upon  foreknowledge  that 
certain  things  will  come  to  pass,  and  are,  therefore,  decreed 
simply  as  certain  because  foreknown — whether,  in  a  word, 
there  is  any  connection  between  God's  decree  and  the  thing 
decreed,  and  what  that  connection  is.  I  understand,  from 
the  most  respectable  Calvinistic  authorities,  already  quoted, 
that  the  decree  of  God,  and  the  event  decreed,  stand  related 
as  cause  and  effect — that  the  event  necessarily  answers  the 
decree — that  the  whole  universe,  indeed,  including  all 
beings,  events,  and  acts,  arises  out  of  the  decree  or  prede- 
termination of  God.  This  being  the  case,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived, inevitably,  by  the  simplest  process  of  reasoning,  that 
sin  results,  g,s  an  effect,  from  the  Divine  decree,  as  its  cause. 

Shall  I  be  told,  that,  though  God,  by  his  decree,' is  the 
cause  of  sinful  acts,  yet  he  causes  not  the  sin  of  the  act? 
This  seems  to  be  the  view  of  the  expositor  of  the  Confes- 
sion. He  says,  "The  decree  of  God  is  either  effective  or 
permissive."  He  does  not  tell  us  in  what  sense  he  employs 
the  term  permissive — a  point  I  should  like  to  have  ex- 
plained— ^but  he  proceeds  to  tell  what  his  permissive  decree 
respects.  "His  effective  decree  respects  all  the  good  thai 
comes  to  pass — his  permissive  decree  all  ihe  evil  that  h 
in  sinful  actions."  Now  observe:  "We  must  distinguish 
between  actions  purely  as  such,  and  the  sinfulness  of  the 
actions.  The  decree  of  God  is  effective  (causal)  with 
respect  to  the  action  itself,  abstractly  considered ;  it  is 
permissive  with  respect  to  the  sinfulness  of  the  act  as  a 
moral  evil."     The  same  sentiment  I  find  in  various  other 


CHAT.   II.J  god's  eternal  DECREES.  33 

autliors;  and,  indeed,  I  find  it  a  common  and  favorite  mode 
of  explanation.  It  is  thus  stated  by  Hermin  Witsius,  a 
learned  German,  in  an  elaborate  defense  of  his  favorite 
tenets :  "  As  these  things  are  universally  true,  they  may  be 
applied  to  ihose  free  actions  of  rational  creatures  in  which 
there  is  a  moral  evil  inherent,  namely,  that  creatures  may  le 
determined  to  their  actions  hy  the  efficacious  infiuence  of  God, 
so  far  as  they  are  actions  according  to  their  physical  entity.'" 
(The  various  quotations  from  Witsius  are,  with  few  excep- 
tions, from  book  i,  chap,  viil,  sec.-xii,  to  the  end.)  What 
am  I  to  understand  by  all  this?  There  is  a  disci imination 
between  the  sinful  act  and  the  sin  of  the  act.  This  is 
correct :  an  act  and  its  sinfulness  are  certainly  distinct.  Sin 
resides  in  the  intention,  not  in  the  act.  A  man  ruins  his 
friend,  or  murders  his  father  :  the  question  of  his  guilt  turns 
upon  his  intention.  Well,  then,  is  this  the  meaning  of  our 
Calvinistic  brethren,  that,  though  God's  decree  is  the  effi- 
cient cause  of  the  sinful  act,  as  an  act,  it  is  not  the  cause 
of  its  sin?  for  the  sin  is  in  the  sinner's  intention  in  com- 
mitting it.  But,  then,  a  question  arises  right  here,  Was  not 
the  sinner's  intention  decreed,  also,  as  well  as  the  act?  If 
you  answer  no,  then  here  is  something  which  comes  to  pass 
in  time  which  was  not  decreed  before  time.  If  you  answer 
yes,  and  the  sin  was  in  the  intention,  then  God,  who  was 
the  author  of  the  intention,  was  the  author  of  the  sin ;  for 
the  sin  and  the  intention  are  the  same. 

Again  :  did  not  God  decree  that  certain  acts,  if  committed 
^nth  certain  intentions,  should  be  sinful?  but  did  he  not, 
also,  decree  that  those  very  acts  and  intentions  should  exist? 
If  so,  is  he  not  the  author  of  the  sin,  both  with  respect 
•  to  the  act  and  intention?  If  not,  is  not  here  something 
coming  to  pass  in  time  which  was  not  decreed  before  time  ? 
There  may  be  some  way  of  escape  from  this  difficulty:  I 
cannot  myself  perceive  it,  and  must  wait  patiently  U'Y 
further  light. 


34  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  11, 

And  again :  is  not  intention  an  essential  part  of  a  mora! 
act?  Can  there  be  a  moral  act  without  intention,  as  an 
element  of  it  ?  if  not,  then  God  did  not  decree  moral  acts, 
or  he  decreed  the  intention,  with  all  else  that  constitutes 
them  moral  acts.  If  he  did  not  decree  all  moral  acts,  then 
here  is  a  class  of  acts  which  he  did  not  decree ;  and  so 
your  doctrine  is  in  error,  when  it  asserts  that  he  decreed  all 
things.  But  if  he  did  decree  all  moral  acts,  then  he  decreed 
all  sins,  without  exceplion,  and  as  sins,  essentially  with  all 
that  constitutes  their  sin — the  sin  itself. 

Still  again :  am  I  told  that  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin, 
because  he  cannot  sin — he  is  under  no  law,  and,  therefore, 
he  cannot  transgress?  Is  this  the  idea?  I  believe  some 
learned  Calvinists  take  this  course  to  escape  the  difficulty. 
If  this  means  any  thing,  it  must  mean  to  discriminate  be- 
tween God's  proper,  personal  acts,  and  those  acts  which  he 
causes  other  beings  to  put  forth.  In  regard  to  the  first,  it 
is  not  pretended  that  God  breaks  the  law  personally,  by 
himself  personally  transgressing  it;  but  this  is  meant,  God 
is  the  author  of  sin  in  this  sense :  1 .  He  makes  a  law,  the 
transgression  of  which  is  sin.  2.  He  places  creatures  under 
the  law.  3.  He  impels  them  to  those  acts  of  transgression 
which  are  sinful.  Thus  he  causes  sin,  by  causing  his  crea- 
tures to  transgress  the  law  under  which  they  were  placed. 
The  act  of  transgression,  in  this  case,  is  God's  own  proper, 
ihough  not  personal,  act;  and  if  there  be  any  sin,  he  is  not 
only  the  author  of  the  sin,  but  the  sinner  himself.  This  is 
so  palpable  I  hesitate  to  dwell  upon  it,  lest  it  might  seem 
an  imputation  upon  the  good  sense  of  my  readers. 

Will  you  be  so  kind,  then,  dear  sir,  as  to  tell  me  how  you 
escape  the  conclusion  to  which  I  am  thus  impelled — that 
God  is,  in  the  true  and  proper  sense,  the  author  of  sin  ? 

All  Calvinistic  authors,  A\dth  whose  writinsfs  I  am  con- 
versant,  perceive  and  admit  the  liability  of  their  scheme  to 
this  objection,  and  do  their  utmost  to  escape  it ;  and,  I  will 


CHAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  35 

add,  they  certainly  display  great  genius  and  skill,  in  con- 
tending with  the  difficulty,  and  do  as  much  to  make  error 
seem  like  the  truth  as  the  most  gifted  intellects  can  do. 

The  argument  may  be  summed  up  thus:  Whatsoever 
comes  to  pass  in  time,  was  unconditionally  and  unalterably 
decreed  before  time.  But  sin  comes  to  pass  in  time ; 
therefore,  sin  was  unconditionally — and  of  course  purely  of 
the  pleasure  of  God,  and  for  its  own  sake — and  unalterably 
decreed  before  time.  God's  decrees  are  the  cause  of  all 
things  that  come  to  pass  in  time ;  but  sin  comes  to  pass  in 
time ;  therefore,  God's  decrees  are  the  cause  of  sin. 

What  results  from  a  decree  as  a  necessary  sequence, 
results  from  the  author  of  the  decree ;  but  sin  results  from 
the  decree  of  God  as  a  necessary  sequence ;  therefore,  sin 
results  from  himself. 

According  to  this  dogma,  no  man  ever  did  or  ever  can 
do  any  thing,  but  what  it  was  ordained  he  should  do  from 
eternity;  to  avoid  which  is  as  impossible  as  to  overthrow 
the  decree  of  God,  and  which,  if  possible,  would  be  rebel- 
lion against  God,  punishable  with  death.  When  I  sin,  I 
am  instrumentally  doing  what  God  chose  should  be  done 
before  I  was  born ;  the  thing  I  do  was  his  choice,  and  he 
made  me  for  no  other  purpose  but  to  accomplish  it — decreed 
It  for  me,  and  me  for  it. 

From  the  foregoing  argument  I  can  conceive  of  no  escape, 
unless  it  be  by  one  of  the  following  method : 

1.  A  denial  of  the  premise,  "God  decrees  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass."     Will  Dr.  Rice  deny? 

2.  A  denial  that  God's  decree  necessarily  procures  the 
thing  decreed.     Will  Dr.  Rice  deny  ? 

3.  A  denial  that  God  is  author  of  that  which  is  solely 
procured  by  his  decree.     Will  Dr.  Rice  deny  ? 

For  it  is  undeniable ;  no  skill  can  escape  the  conclusion. 
If  whatever  comes  to  pass  was  decreed  beforehand,  and  if 
this  preceding  decree  was  the  sole  necessitating  cause  of 


36  god's  eternal  decrees.  Fchap. 


II. 


things  so  decreed,  then  the  author  of  the  decree  is  tlie 
author  of  all  things  included  therein;  and  as  all  thinp's 
that  occur  in  time  are  included  in  the  decree,  and  caused 
by  it,  so  sin,  which  occurs  in  time,  was  included  in,  and 
caused  by,  the  decree.  It  is  by  a  process  of  reasoning  of 
the  foregoing  description,  that  we  are  impelled  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  Calvinistic  system  renders  God  the  author 
of  sin.  If  we  have  misunderstood  the  system,  will  the 
Doctor  point  out  in  what  particular?  If  our  reasoning 
is  illogical  or  unfair,  will  he  show  us  in  what  respect? 

I  am  only  conscious  of  a  desire  to  ascertain  the  truth, 
and  Avould  not,  if  I  could,  resort  to  unfairness,  to  criminate 
the  system  I  oppose.  And  if  I  were  capable  of  so  un- 
christian a  disposition,  I  certainly  could  not  do  it  success- 
fully, observed  as  I  am.  May  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church  himself  give  us  light,  and  load  us  into  the  unity 
of  the  faith,  and  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus ! 

2.  I  object  to  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  as  held  by  Cal- 
vinists,  in  the  second  place,  because  it  is  inconsistent  with, 
and  destructive  to  the  free  agency  of  man. 

The  opposers  of  Messrs.  Wesley  and  Fletcher  violently 
assailed  them  on  this  subject.  Mr.  South ey  informs  us,  in 
his  Life  of  Wesley,  that  the  Calvinists  called  the  doctrine 
of  free  will  "a  cursed  doctrine" — "the  most  God-dis- 
honoring and  soul-destroying  doctrine" — "one  of  the 
prominent  features  of  the  beast" — "the  enemy  of  God" — 
"the  offspring  of  the  wicked  one" — "the  insolent  brat  cf 
hell." 

But  if  they  had  nowhere  admitted  it,  but  in  all  cases 
strongly  denied  it,  as  I  suppose  you  do,  still  the  difficulty 
would  remain ;  for  it  grows  out  of  your  doctrines  inevitably, 
and  is  in  no  sense  affected  by  your  admissions  or  denials. 
It  is  to  no  purpose  that  you  tell  me,  "  God,  from  eternity, 
unconditionally  and  unalterably  decreed  Avhatsoever  comea 
to  pass,  yet  so  as  tliereby  violence  is  not  offered  to  tho 


CUAF.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  37 

will  of  the  creature,"  becciuse  this  again  strikes  my  mind 
only  in  the  light  of  a  contradiction.  It  is  as  though  you 
told  nie  God  determined  what  each  distinct  volition  should 
necessarily  be,  yet  in  such  a  sense  that  any  volition  might 
have  been  different  from  what  it  is — it  is  necessarily  what 
it  is — it  is  not  necessaj'ily  what  it  is. 

But,  not  to  consume  your  time  with  what  may  be  con- 
sidered my  own  representations  of  your  views  upon  this 
point,  let  me  refer  to  authorities,  high  in  your  esteem,  and 
of  unquestionable  information. 

"Neither  does  God  only  excite  and  predetermine  the 
will  of  men  to  vicious  actions,  so  far  as  they  are  aetions, 
hut  he  likewise  so  excites  it,  that  it  is  not  j^ossible  but,  thus 
acted  upon,  it  shall  act.''     (Witsius.) 

**  Moreover,  as  a  second  cause  cannot  act,  unless  acted 
upon,  and  previously  moved  to  act,  by  the  predetermining 
mfluence  of  the  first,  so,  in  like  manner,  that  influence  of 
the  first  cause  is  so  efficacious,  as  that,  supposing  it,  the 
second  cause  cannot  but  act."     (Witsius.) 

It  would  certainly  be  very  inexcusable  to  misunderstand 
these  quotations,  so  clearly  and  definitely  expressed  as  they 
are;  and  scarcely  less  inexcusable  not  to  admire  the  sturdy 
candor  of  their  learned  author  in  so  plainly  delivering  him- 
self upon  such  a  point. 

Second  causes,  among  which  he  reckons  the  human  will, 
cannot  act,  unless,  and  only  as  acted  upon — when  acted 
upon  they  must  act.  This  was  saying  much ;  but,  to  let 
us  know  that  he  was  fully  apprised  of  the  consequences, 
he  goes  still  further.  Not  only  does  God  excite  the  will 
of  men  to  vicious  actions,  but,  thus  excited,  it  is  not  possi- 
ble it  shall  fail  to  act— it  is  under  inexorable  necessity. 

In  the  Old  and  New  Divinity  Compared,  I  read,  "For 
if  God  does  not  possess  such  absolute  control  over  his 
creatures,  that  he  can  govern  them  according  to  his  pleas- 
ure, how  could  he  have  decreed  any  thing  unconditionally 


38  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  ii. 

concerning  them,  since  it  might  happen,  that,  in  the  exercise 
of  their  free  agency,  they  would  act  contrary  to  the  Divine 
purpose  ?" 

If  this  paragraph  means  any  thing,  it  plainly  means  that 
unconditional  decrees  and  free  agency  are  irreconcilable; 
and  as  all  things  are  unconditionally  decreed,  according  to 
the  system,  there  can,  of  course,  be  no  free  agency. 

In  the  trial  of  Dr.  Beecher,  Dr.  Beecher  accuses  Dr. 
Wilson  as  follows :  ''  Dr.  Wilson  has  made  a  distinct  avowal 
that  free  agency  and  moral  obligation  to  obey  law,  do  not 
ifbclude  any  ahility  of  any  kind.''^  To  which  Dr.  Wilson 
replied  directly  in  so  many  words,  "With  respect  to  fallen 
man  I  do!"  "Now,"  says  Dr.  Wilson,  "let  us  look  at  the 
doctrine  of  the  Confession  with  this  principle  in  view,  that 
the  state  of  the  man  determines  the  will.  The  will  is  always 
at  liberty :  choice  is  an  effect  always,  and  not  a  cause  !  It  is 
always  produced  freely.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  bound 
will.  Hence,  all  do  what  is  good  or  evil  voluntarily,  ic 
view  of  a  motive,  and  according  to  the  state  of  mind  in 
which  they  are.  Take  man  in  a  state  of  innocence.  God 
made  him  upright;  in  his  own  image;  his  choice  is  free, 
and  he  chooses  what  is  right ;  but  not  from  any  'power  in 
the  will.  The  will,  as  I  have  said,  has  no  power  to  operate 
on  any  thing  but  the  body.  His  uprightness  was  in  the 
right  state  of  the  affections,  and  the  luminous  state  of  the 
understanding — in  the  correct  state  of  the  memorj^,  and  in 
his  entire  moral  rectitude  in  the  divine  image.  His  will 
was  free  to  do  good  while  no  temptation  was  presented  to  it. 
He  had  no  motive  but  his  accountableness  to  God,  and  his 
love  to  God.  His  will  operated  according  to  the  state  of 
the  man.  But  now  look  at  him  in  another  state — the  state 
of  temptation.  Motives  are  now  presented  to  him  by  the 
arch  tempter,  but  not  to  his  will  at  all ;  they  are  presented 
to  his  understanding  and  appetites — to  his  taste  for  beauty. 
^J'hc  fruit  is  pleasant  to  the  eye;  and  what  was  the  effect? 


cnAv.  II.]  god's  eternal  decrees.  89 

The  will  was  not  trapped  in  any  other  way  than  this :  the 
temptation  addressed  to  these  powers  was  so  strong,  that 
it  overcame  the  dictates  of  judgment,  and  the  man  chose 
wrong.  Volition  moves  the  body:  the  mind  moves  the 
will;  and  the  mind  is  moved  by  that  without,  which  is 
adapted  to  its  constitution."  Now  who  moved  that  with- 
out, and  made  the  constitution? 

The  foregoing  is  the  language  of  Dr.  Wilson,  who,  for 
forty  years,  occupied  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in 
this  city,  and  during  his  long  life  a  prominent  man  in 
the  Church  of  the  west:  certainly,  for  ability  and  oppor- 
tunity, inferior  to  none  of  his  school,  and  therefore  as 
reliable  an  exponent  as  any  other.  But  now  observe  his 
honest  and  candid  admission,  on  an  occasion  when,  of  all 
others,  he  would  be  most  accurate,  and  on  a  point  where 
he  would  be  most  critically  prepared:  "Free  agency  and 
moral  obligation  to  obey  law,  [with  respect  to  fallen  man,] 
do  not  include  any  ability  of  any  IcindP^  According  to 
this,  free  agency,  as  held  by  Calvinists,  does  not  include 
ability  of  any  kind.  A  man  is  a  free  agent,  though  he 
have  no  power  at  all !  He  is  also  responsible  to  obey  law, 
though  he  have  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  do  so ! 

But  he  more  fully  unfolds  his  view,  as  above,  and  no 
one  can  read  the  quotation,  it  seems  to  me,  without  sympa- 
thizing with  the  sincere  and  able  author,  in  the  manifest 
confusion  and  self-contradictions  in  which  he  involves  him- 
self. "The  will  is  always  at  liberty;"  yet  its  choice  is 
always  caused  by  a  foreign  agent!  "When  the  mind 
chooses  it  always  chooses  freely;"  yet  it  has  no  kind  of 
ability  whatever,  but  is  ruled  by  the  motives  in  every  case ! 
"There  is  no  such  thing  as  bound  will;"  but  it  is  always 
an  effect,  and  not  a  cause !  Observe,  further,  his  philoso- 
phy of  the  will.  Dr.  Wilson  carries  back  beyond  or  behind 
the  fall.  Of  man,  in  innocence,  he  says,  "His  will  was 
free  to  do  good  while  no  temptation  was  2'>'i'€Sinted  to  it;^* 


40  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.   II. 

but  what  is  implied  in  this?  When  temptation  came, 
the  will  was  not  free  to  do  good,  but  bound  to  do  evii, 
or  to  yield!  This,  indeed,  he  does  not  leave  us  to  infer, 
but  expressly  s'tates  that  the  temptation  presented  to  the 
first  pair  was  such  that  it  overcame,  by  its  strength,  the 
mmd — "  the  mind  moves  the  will,  and  was  itself  moved  by 
that  without;"  and  thus  man  fell  under  the  force  of  a 
temptation,  which  he  had  no  power  to  resist.  He  fell, 
therefore,  when,  under  the  circumstances,  he  had  no  power 
to  stand !  And  yet  he  Avas  free  in  doing  what  he  had  no 
power  to  avoid ! 

1-.  The  expositor  of  the  Confession,  in  his  notes  on  the 
article  respecting  the  will,  holds  this  language:  "Accord- 
ing to  Calvinists,  the  liberty  of  a  moral  agent  consists  in 
the  power  of  acting  according  to  his  choice;  and  those 
actions  are  free  Avhich  are  performed  without  external 
compulsion — physical  compulsion — in  consequence  of  the 
determination  of  his  own  mind.  The  necessity  of  man's 
willing  and  acting,  according  to  his  apprehension  and  dis- 
position, is,  in  their  opinion,  fully  consistent  with  the  high- 
est libei'ty  which  can  belong  to  a  rational  nature. 
As  nothing  can  ever  come  to  pass  without  a  cause,  the 
acts  of  the  will  are  never  without  necessity — understanding, 
by  necessity,  an  infallible  connection  with  something  fore- 
going." This  I  understand  to  be  the  doctrine  of  all  Cal- 
vinists respecting  the  will  of  man,  as  well  before  as  since 
the  fall ;  it  is  often  expressed  in  stronger  language. 

Now,  this  view  of  the  will  utterly  discards  this  idea  of 
liberty — power  to  choose  either  of  two  alternatives.  Here 
is  the  real  point  of  difference  between  us  and  them :  with 
them  liberty  is  necessity  to  choose  one  way  according  to 
the  motive,  but  not  power  to  make  an  opposite  choice: 
with  us  it  is  a  power  to  choose  either  of  the  various  alter- 
natives presented  to  the  mind.  Now,  upon  their  doctrine 
of  the   will,  1   base    an   argument   that   its    decisions  are 


CHAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  41 

necessitated,  and  not  free;  a^,  hence,  that  it  is  absurd 
for  a  Calvinist  to  contend  for  freedom.  Take  a  man  in 
a  state  of  innocence — for  we  desire  to  give  the  advocates 
of  tlie  system  the  most  favorable  opportunity  to  defend 
themselves — the  question  is.  Was  man  capacitated  with 
freedom  to  stand  or  fall,  in  the  circumstances  ?  And,  ac- 
cording to  the  Calvinian  system,  the  answer  must  be,  he 
was  not  •  for  he  was  so  constituted  that  he  must  yield  to 
the  prevailing  disposition  or  strongest  motive.  He  could 
not  avoid  this — it  was  his  nature.  He  had  no  control  of 
these  motives,  and  when  they  came  upon  him  he  as  neces- 
sarily was  moved  by  them,  as  the  needle  is  moved  to  the 
pole ;  it  matters  not  that  he  chose  to  move  with  the  influ- 
ence ;  for  the  want  of  liberty  and  the  fact  of  necessity  were 
found  in  the  circumstance,  that  he  had  no  control  of  his 
choice :  he  made  his  choice  necessarily. 

j^ow,  I  ask  Dr.  Rice,  what  does  control  the  choice  ?  He 
must  answer,  whatever  goes  to  constitute  the  prevailing 
motive.  But  then  I  ask,  who  controls  and  governs  these 
motives  ?  And  he  must  answer,  that  all  things  are  arranged 
and  governed  by  God  himself :  God  controls  the  motives : 
the  motives  control  the  man.  He  sins,  necessitated  by  the 
motive.  And,  now,  where  do  we  find  the  first  cause  ?  Kot 
in  the  choice  ;  for  it  was  an  effect :  not  in  the  motives  ;  for 
they  were  under  the  government  and  control  of  God.  Here, 
then,  we  trace  the  operations  of  man's  will  back  to  God  : 
not  as  permitted,  but  procured.  If  the  Calvinists  can  trace 
it  beyond  God,  they  may  free  their  system  from  making 
God  the  first  cause  of  sin ! 

Thomas  Aquinas,  quoted  with  approval  by  Witsius,  says, 
*'  It  is  essential  to  the  first  principle,  that  it  can  act  without 
the  assistance  and  influence  of  a  prior  agent;  so  that,  if 
the  human  will  could  produce  any  action,  of  which  God 
was  not  author,  the  human  will  would  have  the  nature  of  a 
nrst  principle.     .     .     .     Nor  does  God  only  concur  with  tlie 

4 


42  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

jictions  of  second  causes,  when  they  act,  but,  also,  mfluences 
the  causes  themselves  to  act." 

"  Calvinists  contend  that,  as  nothing  can  ever  come  to 
pass  without  a  cause,  the  acts  of  the  will  are  never  contin- 
gent, or  without  necessity — understanding,  by  necessity,  a 
necessity  of  consequence,  or  an  infallible  connection  Avitli 
something  foregoing."     (Expositor  of  the  Confession.) 

This  is  plain  language.  The  will  never  acts  but  as  neces- 
sitated by  a  foregoing  cause,  infalhbly  producing  the  act. 
That  foregoing  cause  was  decreed  by  the  divine  Being,  to 
produce  that  precise  volition ;  and  it  produced  it  with  all 
the  certainty  of  a  necessary  effect.  That  is,  the  will  is  free 
to  act  in  agreement  with  the  irresistible  bias  of  a  necessi- 
tating cause. 

This  is  the  same  scheme,  if  I  understand  them,  taught  by 
Mr.  Edwards,  and  his  numerous  admirers,  in  their  fruitless 
effort  to  reconcile  freedom  and  necessity.  "  The  plain  and 
obvious  meaning  of  the  words,  freedom  and  libert}^"  says 
Edwards,  "is  power,  opportunity,  or  advantage,  that  any 
one  has  to  do  as  he  pleases."  But  he  also  teaches  us  thai 
the  vohlion  is  necessary — his  will  or  particular  choice, 
whatever  it  may  be,  is  necessarily  determined  by  motive, 
and  the  motive  is  fixed  b}^  decree ;  so  that,  though  a  man 
do  as  he  pleases,  he  is  not  free,  because  he  cannot  please 
to  do  otherwise,  and  by  necessity,  as  stern  as  the  most 
absolute  compulsion,  chooses  as  he  does.  "This  doctrine 
is  identical  with  fatalism,  in  its  worst  form.  All  that  fatal- 
ism ever  has  maintained,  or  now  maintains,  is,  that  men,  by 
a  power  which  they  cannot  control  or  resist,  are  placed  in 
circumstances  in  which  they  cannot  but  pursue  the  course 
of  conduct  which  they  actually  are  pursuing.  This  doctrme 
never  has  assumed  that  in  the  necessitarian  sense  men 
cannot  do  as  they  please.  All  that  it  maintains  is,  that 
they  cannot  but  please  to  do  as  they  do." 

"It  is  altogether  futile,  then,  to  talk  about  free  agency 


riiAP.  11  j  god's  eternal  decrees.  43 

under  such  a  constitution ;  the  very  spring  of  motion  to  the 
whole  intellectual  machinery,  is  under  the  influence  of  a 
secret,  invincible  power;  and  it  must  move  as  that  power 
directs,  for  it  is  the  hand  of  Omnipotence  that  urges  it  on. 
lie  can  act  as  he  wills,  it  is  true ;  but  the  whole  responsi- 
bility consists  in  the  volition,  and  this  is  the  result  of  God's 
propelling  power.  He  wills  as  he  is  made  to  will.  He 
chooses  as  he  must  choose;  for  the  immutable  decree  of 
Jehovah  is  upon  him.  And  can  a  man,  upon  the  known 
principles  of  responsibility,  be  accountable  for  such  a  voli- 
tion? It  is  argued,  I  know,  that  man  is  responsible  because 
he  feels  that  he  acts  freely,  and  that  he  might  have  done 
otherwise.  To  this  I  reply,  that  this  is  a  good  argument, 
on  our  principle,  to  prove  that  men  are  free;  but  on  the 
Calvinistic  ground,  it  only  proves  that  God  hath  deceived 
us.  He  has  made  us  feel  that  we  might  do  otherwise,  but 
he  knows  Ave  cannot — he  has  determined  we  shall  not ;  so 
that,  in  fact,  this  argument  makes  the  system  more  objec- 
tionable. While  it  does  not  change  the  fact  in  the  case,  it 
attributes  deception  to  the  Almighty.  It  is  logically  true, 
therefore,  from  this  doctrine,  that  man  is  not  a  free  agent, 
and  therefore  not  responsible."  "A  man  chooses  what 
appears  to  be  good,"  says  Mr.  Dick,  "and  he  chooses  it 
necessarily,  in  this  sense,  that  he  could  not  do  otherwise. 
The  object  of  every  volition  is  to  please  himself;  and  to 
suppose  a  man  to  have  any  other  object,  that  is,  to  will  any 
thing  that  does  not  please  him  in  itself,  or  in  its  circum- 
stances, is  absurd :  it  is  to  suppose  him  to  will  and  not  to 
W\\\,  at  the  same  time.  He  is  perfectly  voluntary  in  his 
choice;  hut  his  ivillingness  is  the  consequence  of  the  view 
which  his  mind  takes  of  the  object  2^'>'esented  to  it,  or  of  his 
vrevailiny  dis2Josition. 

"Those  actions  are  free  which  are  the  effect  of  volition. 
In  whatever  manner  the  state  of  mind  which  gave  rise  to 
the  volition  has  been  produced,  the  liberty  of  the  agent  is 


44  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

neither  greater  nor  less.  It  is  the  will  alone  which  is  to  be 
considered,  and  not  the  means  by  which  it  has  been  deter- 
mined. If  God  foreordained  certain  actions,  and  placed 
men  in  such  circumstances  that  the  actions  would  certainly 
take  place,  agreeably  to  the  laws  of  the  mind,  men  are, 
nevertheless,  moral  agents,  because  they  act  voluntarily, 
and  are  responsible  for  the  actions  which  consent  has  made 
their  own.  Liberty  does  not  consist  in  the  power  of  acting 
01  not  acting,  but  in  acting  from  choice.  The  choice  is 
determined  by  something  in  the  mind  itself,  or  by  something 
external  influencing  the  mind;  but  whatever  is  the  cause, 
the  choice  makes  the  action  free,  and  the  agent  accountable. 
If  this  definition  of  liberty  be  admitted,  you  will  perceive 
that  it  is  possible  to  reconcile  the  freedom  of  the  will  with 
absolute  decrees ;  but  we  have  not  got  rid  of  every  difficulty. 
By  this  theory,  human  actions  appear  to  he  as  necessary  as 
the  motions  of  matter,  according  to  the  laios  of  gravitation 
and  attraction :  and  man  seems  to  he  a  machine,  conscious  of 
his  movements,  and  consenting  to  them,  hut  impelled  hy  some- 
thing different  from  himself.'^ 

This  is  the  deplorable  conclusion  to  which  Mr.  Dick 
himself  comes.  And  his  only  effort  to  extricate  himself  is 
this:  "Upon  such  a  subject  no  man  should  be  ashamed  to 
acknowledge  his  ignorance."  Several  things  are  remarkable 
in  this  paragraph.  1.  Liberty  and  necessity  are  the  same 
thing.  2.  Man  is  accountable  for  his  actions,  though  he  is 
a  machine,  and  is  under  a  necessity,  as  that  of  matter  to 
obey  gravitation.  The  honesty  of  the  reasoner  must  be 
admired,  while  his  sophistry  is  a  matter  of  marvel. 

Of  the  same  import  is  the  following,  which  I  quote  from 
an  author  admired  more  than  any  other,  perhaps,  at  the 
present  time — Dr.  Chalmers:  "Every  step  of  every  indi- 
vidual character  receives  as  de'terminate  a  character  from 
the  hand  of  God,  as  every  mile  of  a  planet's  orbit,  or  every 
gust  of  wind,  or  every  wave  of  the  sea,  or  every  particle 


CHAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  4b 

of  flying  dust,  or  every  rivulet  of  flowing  water.  This 
power  of  God  knows  no  exceptions;  it  is  absolute  and 
unlimited.  And  while  it  embraces  the  vast,  it  carries  its 
resistless  influences  to  all  the  minute  and  unnoticed  diver- 
sities of  existence.  It  reigns  and  operates  through  all  the 
secrecies  of  the  inner  man.  It  ffives  birth  to  every  imrjpose  ; 
it  gives  impulse  to  every  desire ;  it  gives  shape  and  color  to 
every  conception ;  it  wields  an  entire  ascendency  over  every 
attribute  of  the  mind :  and  the  will,  and  the  fancy,  and  the 
understanding,  with  all  the  countless  variety  of  their  hidden 
and  fugitive  operations,  are  submitted  to  it.  It  gives  move- 
ment and  direction  through  every  point  of  our  pilgrim- 
age. At  no  moment  of  time  does  it  abandon  us.  It  follows 
us  to  the  hour  of  death,  and  it  carries  us  to  our  place,  and 
to  our  everlasting  destiny  in  the  regions  beyond  it!" 

I  confess  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  stronger  assertion  of 
fatalism,  with  respect  to  man  and  things,  than  is  contained 
in  the  foregoing  remarkable  quotations.  All  mental  and 
physical  processes,  from  the  first  Hnk  to  the  end  of  the 
chain,  are  connected  together  in  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect. 

No  man  can  choose  differently  from  what  he  does ;  and 
as  he  acts  from  his  volitions,  he  cannot  act  differently  from 
what  he  does — it  is  all  fixed  by  inexorable  necessity.  Is 
such  a  being  free?  Is  this  the  liberty  of  man?  If  this 
be  moderate  Calvinism,  what  must  it  be  in  the  ultra,  high- 
toned  type  ? 

If  any  thing  further  should  be  esteemed  necessary  upon 
this  point,  a  few  selections  from  Dr.  Emmons,  a  distin- 
guished divine  of  New  England,  and  author  of  an  elaborate 
work  on  theology,  may  supply  the  demand.  He  says, 
**  Since  the  Scriptures  ascribe  all  the  actions  of  men  to  God. 
as  well  as  to  themselves,  we  may  justly  conclude  that  the 
Divine  o.gency  is  as  much  concerned  in  their  had  as  their  good 
actions.     Many  are  disposed  to  make  a  distinction  here,  and 


46  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

to  ascribe  only  tlie  good  actions  of  men  to  the  Divine 
agency,  while  they  ascribe  their  bad  ones  to  the  Divine 
permission.  But  there  appears  no  ground  for  this  distinc- 
tion in  Scripture  or  reason.  Men  are  no  more  capable  of 
acting  independently  of  God,  in  one  instance,  than  another. 
If  they  need  any  kind  or  degree  of  Divine  agency  in  doing 
good,  they  need  precisely  the  same  kind  and  degree  of 
Divine  agency  in  doing  evil. 

'*  But  there  was  no  possible  way  in  which  he  could 
dispose  them  to  act  right  or  wrong,  but  only  by  producing 
right  or  wrong  volitions  in  their  hearts.  And  if  he  pro- 
duced their  bad  as  well  as  good  vohtions,  then  his  agency 
was  concerned  in  precisely  the  same  manner  in  their  wrong 
as  in  their  right  actions.  His  agency  in  making  them  act, 
necessarily  connects  his  agency  and  theirs  together,  and 
lays  a  solid  foundation  for  ascribing  their  actions  either  to 
him  or  them,  or  to  both. 

"  But,  since  mind  cannot  act  any  more  than  matter  can 
move,  without  a  Divine  agency,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that 
men  can  be  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  to  act  or 
not  to  act,  independently  of  Divine  influence.  There  must, 
therefore,  be  the  exercise  of  Divine  agency  in  every  human 
action. 

"  By  this  invisible  agency  upon  the  minds,  he  governs  all 
their  views,  all  their  thoughts,  all  their  determinations,  and 
all  their  volitions,  just  as  he  pleases,  and  just  according  to 
his  secret  will,  which  they  neither  know  beforehand,  nor  can 
resist,  evade,  or  frustrate." 

Thus  we  prove  upon  the  system  both  that  it  makes 
God  the  author  of  sin,  and  destroys  the  free  agency 
of  man. 

These  quotations  show  v/hat  Calvinists  themselves  teach 
upon  the  subject  in  dispute.  They  are  not  our  deductions, 
but  their  own  propositions — not  our  misrepresentations  of 
their  views,  but  their  own  carefully-studied  and  woll-consid- 


CHAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  4*1 

ered  declarations.  They  are  precisely  the  inferences  we 
should  have  made  from  the  premise  work  of  their  system ; 
but  they  have  saved  us  the  trouble  and  responsibihty,  by 
candidly  acknowledging  themselves. 

And  now  the  argument  stands  thus :  Man  can  only  will 
as  he  is  moved  by  Divine  agency;  and  when  moved  by 
Divine  agency  he  cannot  but  will;  so,  therefore,  when 
man  wills  it  is  not  a  free,  but  a  necessitated  act.  What  a 
man  wills  he  wills  not  freely,  but  he  wills  because  another, 
by  invisible  power,  irresistibly  compels  him  to  will.  It  is 
not  his  own  act,  but  it  is  an  act  of  which  he  is  made  the 
passive  subject,  by  another  operating  through  him,  and  a 
power  entirely  separate  from  himself. 

He  chooses  as  he  does — as  necessarily  as  matter  yields 
to  the  law  of  gravitation — and  he  is  no  more  free  in  his 
choice  than  the  earth  is  in  its  revolutions.  The  choice  he 
makes  is  no  more  his  free  act,  than  the  tendency  of  the 
needle  to  the  pole  is  its  free  act.  It  makes  no  difference 
that  choice  is  supposed  in  one  case  and  not  in  the  other, 
because  choice  is  an  effect  of  a  cause  entirely  out  of  the 
man,  and  independent  of  him,  and  so,  of  course,  cannot  be 
his  act. 

Doctor,  I  wish  you  would  help  me  here.  My  difficult}^ 
as  you  will  perceive,  is  at  this  point,  to  know  how  a  man  is 
free  in  willing,  when  at  the  same  time  his  particular  exer- 
cise of  will  is  an  effect  of  which  he  is  the  coerced  instru- 
ment.    Will  you  tell  me  how  this  is  ? 

3.  I  object  to  the  doctrine,  in  the  third  place,  because  it 
destroys  the  accountability  of  man. 

This  proposition  is  so  nearly  identical  v^itli  the  former,  if 
not  entirely  so,  that  it  only  requires  to  be  stated.  Freedom 
and  liberty,  I  believe  all  admit,  are  essential  to  account- 
ability ;  and  hence  the  well-grounded  apprehension  of  our 
Oalvinistic  brethren,  at  the  imputation,  that  their  doctrine 
is  destructive  to  freedom  of  agency. 


48  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

"  To  conceive  of  beings  deserving  praise  or  blame,"  says 
Dr.  Fisk,  "  for  volitions  or  actions,  which  occurred  under 
circumstances  over  which  they  had  no  control,  and  under 
which  no  other  volitions  or  actions  were  possible,  and  in 
which  these  could  not  but  happen,  is  an  absolute  impossi- 
bility. To  conceive  them  under  obhgation  to  have  given 
existence,  under  such  circumstances,  to  different  conse- 
quents, is  equally  impossible.  It  is  to  suppose  an  agent 
under  obligation  to  perform  an  absolute  and  intrinsic  im- 
possibihty.  Let  any  individual  conceive  of  beings  placed 
by  divine  Providence  in  circumstances  in  which  but  one 
act,  or  series  of  acts  of  will,  can  arise,  and  these  cannot 
but  arise — let  him  then  attempt  to  conceive  of  these  crea- 
tures as  under  obligations,  in  the  same  circumstances  over 
which  they  have  no  control,  to  give  existence  to  different 
and  opposite  acts,  and  as  deserving  of  punishment  for  not 
doing  so.  He  will  find  it  impossible  to  pass  such  a  judg- 
ment— human  intelligence  is  incapable  of  affirming  such 
contradictions." 

Thus,  by  sapping  the  foundations  of  free  agency,  it,  at 
the  same  time,  destroys  human  accountability,  releases  man 
from  all  obligation,  and  renders  God  the  only  responsible 
being  in  the  universe. 

I  would  not  press  illegitimate  results  upon  your  system, 
to  give  you  the  trouble  of  examining,  and  the  unpleasant 
task  of  refuting  and  correcting  them ;  but  these,  which  I 
present,  strike  me  as  so  plain  and  inevitable,  and  of  such 
force,  that  you  must  excuse  me  for  urging  them  upon  your 
notice.     This  point — how  am  I  to  escape  it  ? 

You  tell  me,  that  whatever  I  do,  during  my  whole  exist- 
ence, comes  to  pass  by  a  decree  of  God — which  decree  is 
the  necessitating  cause  of  things.  Now,  a  question  here: 
Am  I  accountable  for  doing  what,  by  decree,  I  am  com- 
pelled to  do  ?  or  is  the  author  of  the  decree  accountable  ? 
that  is,  is  the  agent  or  instrument  responsible  ?     It  will  not 


CHAP.  ii.J  god's  eternal  decrees.  49 

do.  Doctor,  to  tell  me,  that,  though  the  decree  must  be 
complied  with,  yet  that  I  comply  freely,  inasmuch  as  I,  of 
choice,  do  the  thing  decreed ;  because  you  have  told  me 
before,  that  ray  choice  is,  also,  wrought  in  me,  directly  or 
indirectly,  by  the  same  great  Being  whose  decree  binds 
me — I  am  not  the  author  of  the  choice,  but  the  passive 
instrument  of  it.  Am  I  accountable  when  I  do  nothing 
but  what  I  am  caused  to  do,  by  omnipotent  agency  exerted 
upon  me  ? 

Do  I  sin  against  God  when  I  make  the  very  choice 
which  he  works  in  me?  when  I  do  the  act  which  that 
choice  dictates  ?  And,  when  I  could  not  have  made  another 
choice,  or  performed  another  act,  to  save  the  universe,  must 
I  be  damned  for  ever,  for  doing  a  thing  I  could  not  help 
but  do?  and  must  I  thus  be  damned  by  the  very  being 
who  made  me,  and  necessitated  the  act  for  which  he  thus 
destroys  me  ?  I  desire  a  plain  answer  upon  these  points  ? 
You  cannot  fail  to  perceive  where  my  difficulties  lie,  with 
respect  to  your  system;  and  you  can  easily  show,  either 
hoAv  they  do  not  bear  on  the  system,  or  how  I  may  escape 
the  inference,  or  that  the  inference  is  not  objectionable. 

If  Dr.  Rice  denies  that  God  decreed  the  existence  of 
sin,  then  he  abandons  and  denies  his  Confession,  which 
declares  that  "  God,  from  all  eternity,  did,  by  the  most 
wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  free  will,  freely  and  un- 
changeably ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  If  he 
denies  that  the  decree  is  the  efficient  cause  of  the  thing 
decreed,  he  antagonizes  various  authors,  quoted  in  the  com- 
mencement of  this  chapter,  and  particularly  Calvin,  who 
says,  with  Augustine,  "  The  decree  of  God  is  the  necessity, 
or  necessitating  cause,  of  things  ;"  and,  in  that  case,  we  hope 
the  Doctor  will  explain  to  us  what  he  means  by  decree — what 
relation  it  has  to  the  thing  decreed.  For  the  arguments  sus- 
taining this  objection  against  the  Calvinistic  system,  I  refer 
Dr.  Rice  to  my  preceding  remarks,  to  which  I  desire  him  to 

5 


60  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  It. 

give  n,  careful  consideration,  and  then,  to  point  out  to  me 
wherein  they  fail  to  sustain  the  conclusion.  He  admits, 
equally  with  mj^self,  if  the  objection  is  made  good,  his 
system  is  false ;  for  he  alledges  precisely  the  same  objec- 
tion against  another  system  as  an  insuperable  difficulty — as 
an  entirely  sufficient  reason  for  discarding  it  as  utterly  false. 
Now,  either  he  and  I  are  at  fault,  in  employing  the  objec- 
tion against  Universalism,  or,  if  sustained  against  Dr.  Rice*8 
system,  he  is  equally  bound,  with  myself,  to  discard  the 
system  so  embarrassed ;  and  if  not  sustained,  he  will,  by  so 
much  as  he  loves  truth  and  deprecates  error,  point  out  in 
what  respect  it  fails. 

It  will  not  answer  to  tell  me  these  things  have  been  often 
explained,  nor  yet  to  deny,  or  refer  to  antagonistic  pro- 
fessions and  disclaimers — the  thing  we  demand,  is  to  have 
it  pointed  out  how  the  system  can  escape  the  logical  conse- 
quences we  have  produced  against  it.  If  our  logic  is  good, 
the  system  is  bad ;  if  the  system  is  good,  our  logic  is  bad. 
It  is  a  plain  point — will  the  Doctor  make  his  election  ? 

Dr.  Rice  alledges,  as  an  objection  to  Universalism,  that 
its  advocates  "  are  forced  to  deny  the  free  agency  of  man, 
and  to  maintain  that  all  his  actions  are  necessary."  In 
proof  that  this  is  the  case,  he  quotes  from  Mr.  Ballou, 
"Man  is  dependent  in  all  his  volitions,  and  moved  by 
necessity."  This  he  esteems  a  sufficient  objection  against 
Universalism,  and  I  agree  with  him.  But  I  charge  Calvin- 
ism with  including  precisely  the  same  doctrine,  and  refer, 
for  the  proof  of  this  charge,  to  the  evidence  already  ad- 
duced.    Will  Dr.  Ptice  extricate  his  system  ? 

This  same  objection  he  urges  against  phrenology,  in  his 
work  upon  that  subject.  He  says  this  system  *'  denies  his 
[man's]  free,  moral  agency,  and  makes  him  alike  mcapablo 
Df  virtue  or  vice."  This  objection  is  argued  at  length,  and 
insisted  upon  as  an  insuperable  difficulty.  He  is  right. 
But  T  charge  precisely  the  same  difficulty  upon  his  system — 


CHAP.  II.]  GOD  S  ETERNAL  DECREES.  61 

both  that  it  "  denies  free,  moral  agency,"  and  destro}'^ 
the  distinction  between  "  vice  and  virtue."  He  says  of 
man,  in  the  hght  of  this  system,  "  He  is  under  a  physical 
necessity  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  promptings  of  his 
cerebral  organization,  and  is  incapable  of  either  virtue  or 
vice."  Now  I  charge  his  system  with  placing  man  under  a 
necessity,  as  stern  as  that  which  phrenology  teaches ;  and, 
consequently,  as  certainly  destroying  both  his  agency  and 
accountability.  I  have  been  astonished  to  find  that  free 
agency  is  a  favorite  doctrine  with  Dr.  Rice ;  and  I  now  ask 
him  to  reconcile  it  with  his  system ;  and  if  it  cannot  be 
done,  admit  either  that  he  believes  a  palpable  contradiction, 
or  set  aside  his  system  or  this  doctrine. 

4.  By  destroying  the  agency  and  accountability  of  man, 
I  charge  the  system  further,  with  destroying  the  moral 
character  of  human  acts  and  volitions — with  rendering 
the  terms,  vice  and  virtue,  good  and  bad,  as  conveying 
the  idea  of  moral  quality — not  predicable  of  man.  If 
the  system  be  true,  man  is  no  more  a  moral  being.  Do 
what  he  may,  he  is  not  \^cious — he  is  incapable  to  be 
virtuous.     He  never  sins — he  cannot ;  nor  the  opposite. 

This  is  so  plain  to  my  own  mind,  that  I  do  not  see  how 
it  can  escape  your  observation.  To  argue  it,  would  almost 
be  a  reflection  upon  my  readers.  It  would  be  to  attempt 
to  produce  conviction,  by  argument,  of  a  truth,  which  I 
firmly  believe  no  human  mind  can  deny,  namely,  that  a 
person  cannot  be  worthy  of  praise  or  blame,  for  an  act 
over  which  he  has  not,  and  never  had,  any  control  what- 
ever. Now,  sir,  I  do  not  believe  that  any  human  intelli- 
gence can  affirm  such  a  proposition.  Morality  supposes 
agency — the  system,  by  inevitable  deduction,  denies  it; 
and  the  two  fall  together.  A  greater  absurdity  can 
scarcely  be  imagined,  than  to  affirm  a  man  to  be  virtuous 
for  an  act,  the  choice  and  performance  of  which  were 
coerced  upon  him — the   contrary  of   which   he  could   not 


£2  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

have  performed,  any  more  than  he  could  usurp  the  place 
of  the  Almighty,  and  the  thing  itself  he  performed  only 
as  a  passive  instrument,  operated  upon  and  compelled  by 
Omnipotence.  Vice  and  virtue,  which  can  only  be  pred- 
icated of  the  free  original  cause,  cannot  be  affirmed  of 
man;  but  all  vice  and  all  virtue,  if  there  be  any  such 
thing,  according  to  the  system,  have  God  as  their  centre, 
or  that  fate,  which  the  system,  as  we  shall  show  in  due 
f.ime,  more  than  intimates,  is  above  Jehovah. 

I  find,  in  casting  my  eye  over  Dr.  Rice's  discussion  with 
Mr.  Pingree,  several  things  bearing  directly  on  the  points 
to  which  I  have  invited  his  attention. 

His  fifth  article  against  Universalism  is,  "  That  it  makes 
God  the  author,  or  cause,  of  all  the  sin  in  the  world." 
He  alledges  this  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  discarding  the 
system.  In  this  I  perfectly  agree  with  him.  I  also  admit 
that  he  sustains  the  objection  with  unanswerable  arguments 
against  Universalism.  But  now  I  object  precisely  the  same 
thing  to  Dr.  Rice's  system.  I  think  I  have  sustained  the 
objection  with  unanswerable  arguments.  Will  the  Doctor 
show  me  wherein,  if  at  all,  my  argument  is  at  fault?  And, 
if  not  at  fault,  will  he  show  why  he  allows  the  objection  to 
be  of  sufficient  force  to  set  aside  one  system,  and  not 
another  equally  involved  ? 

The  proof  he  adduces,  that  Universalism  renders  God 
the  author  of  sin,  is  thus  stated :  "  Universalism  maintains 
that  sin  proceeds  from  physical  causes,  inherent  in  the 
human  constitution,  as  it  came  from  the  hand  of  God.** 
This  Dr.  Rice  denounces  "a  revolting  and  blasphemous 
doctrine."  But  why  so?  Why  revolting  and  blasphe- 
mous? Simply,  because  it  renders  God  the  author  of 
fiin;  in  this  sense,  that  sin  proceeds  from  physical  causes, 
inherent  in  the  human  constitution,  which  constitution  God 
made. 

Now,  I  ask  Dr.  Rice,  does  not  he  maintain  that  God  as 


CBAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  63 

ibsolutely  created  or  caused  sin  as  the  system  lie  discards  ? 
That  system  attributes  the  authorship  of  sin  to  God,  by 
asserting  that  sin  inheres  in  the  nature  of  man;  and  God 
created  the  nature,  and  so  caused  sin. 

Dr.  Rice  maintains  that  God  actually  decreed  the  exist- 
ence of  sin,  and  that  his  decree  was  the  cause  of  its  exist- 
ence; so  much  so,  that  it  could  not  but  be,  being  decreed, 
and  could  not  have  been  without  being  decreed. 

Dr.  Rice  says,  "One  of  the  clearest  truths  in  mental 
philosophy  is,  that  man  is  a  free,  moral  agent,  and,  there- 
fore, an  accountable  being.  It  is  a  truth  to  which  tlie 
consciousness  of  every  individual  bears  testimony  the  most 
unequivocal."  With  this  sentiment  I  fully  accord;  but  I 
charge  upon  Dr.  Rice  that  he  has  embraced  a  system 
which  denies  this  clearest  and  most  important  of  truths, 
to  which  human  consiousness  bears  unequivocal  testimony ; 
and  my  reasons  for  so  charging  his  system  have  been 
heretofore  presented,  (pages  36-48.)  Will  he  show  me 
how  to  escape  the  force  of  these  reasons  ? 

I  beg  the  Doctor  to  believe  me -sincere,  in  asking  for 
light  upon  these  points.  I  find  him  discarding  two  systems 
of  opinions,  for  the  reasons  that  they  make  God  the  author 
of  sin,  and  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  the  free  agency 
and  accountabihty  of  man.  These  he  esteems  sufficient 
reason  for  rejecting;  so  do  I.  But  now  I  find  that  he, 
after  all,  embraces  a  system,  which  I  firmly  beheve  is  beset 
with  the  same  difficulties:  my  reasons  for  this  belief  are 
already  given.  If  I  am  right  in  my  view  of  his  system,  he 
Is  guilty  of  inexcusable  inconsistency;  if  I  am  wrono-,  in 
en-or,  my  reasonings  are  incorrect.  And  now  I  ask  the 
Doctor  to  set  me  right. 

5.  "I  object  further:  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  at  the 
final  judgment  the  conscience  and  intelligence  of  the  uni- 
verse will  and  must  be  on  the  side  of  the  condemned. 

''Suppose  that,  when  the  conduct  of  the  wicked  sliall 


54  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II, 

be  revealed  in  that  day,  another  fact  shall  stand  out  with 
equal  conspicuousness,  namely,  that  God  himself  hath 
placed  these  beings  where  but  one  course  of  conduct  was 
possible  to  them,  and  that  course  they  could  not  but 
pursue ;  and  that,  for  having  pursued  this  course — the  only 
one  possible — they  are  now  to  be  punished  with  everlasting 
destruction,  from  the  presence  of  God  and  the  glory  of 
his  power,  must  not  the  intelligence  of  the  universe  pro- 
nounce such  sentence  unjust?"  Heaven  and  hell  would 
equally  revolt  at  it,  and  all  rational  beings  conspire  to 
execrate  the  almighty  monster  capable  of  such  a  pro- 
cedure. Convince  the  universe  that  such  is  the  character, 
and  will  ultimately  be  the  conduct  of  God,  and  he  can  no 
more  be  worshiped,  but  with  hypocrisy,  or  even  con- 
templated, but  with  dread,  detestation,  and  abhorrence. 
I  appeal  to  the  consciousness  of  man — to  the  philosophy 
of  our  nature — to  all  known  processes  of  thought  and 
feeling — if  such  would  not  necessarily  be  the  verdict  of 
humanity.  They  that  enter  into  heaven,  and  they  that  de- 
part to  hell,  from  a  judgment-seat  where  such  a  principle 
determines  destiny,  must  go  bearing  the  same  sentiment — 
the  same  feeling  of  disgust  and  horror  of  the  gigantic 
tyranny  ruling  over  them.  Hell  would  be  a  refuge  from 
the  presence  of  such  a  being — its  woes  a  respite  from  the 
deeper  alarms  of  his  hated  and  dreaded  intercourse. 

In  the  name  of  Christianity,  I  protest  against  a  principle 
involving  such  blasphemy.  It  is  impossible  that  the  ever- 
blessed  God  should  be  remotely  liable,  by  any  thing  he 
has  done — by  any  thing  discoverable  in  his  works — by  any 
revelations  he  has  made,  either  of  his  character  or  plans, 
to  such  an  imputation.  Thou  glorious  Ruler  of  the  uni- 
verse, what  blasphemy  of  thy  blessed  name  can  equal  this 
for  enormity — to  charge  that,  for  the  glory  of  thy  sover- 
eignty, and  to  manifest  thy  power,  thou  art  now  damning 
millions  of  helpless  creatures  in  hell  for  ever,  for  no  cause, 


CHAP.  II.]        god's  eternal  DECREES.  55 

but  doing  precisely  what  thou  didst  compel  them  to  do, 
and  what  they  could  not  possibly  avoid  ! 

6.  Nay,  more :  I  charge  the  doctrine,  not  only  with 
putting  a  plea  in  the  sinner's  mouth,  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, but,  also,  with  furnishing  him  with  a  plea,  when  he 
is  brought  before  earthly  courts,  to  answer  for  his  crimes. 
These,  indeed — earthly  courts — if  Calvinism  is  true,  are 
only  lesser  parts  of  the  stupendous  economy  of  tyranny. 
What  justice  is  there  in  any  power  on  earth — what  right, 
to  try,  condemn,  and  punish  men,  for  any  of  their  acts,  if 
they  could  not,  by  any  possibility,  avoid  them — if  they 
were  impelled  thereto  by  almighty  fate?  You  do  not 
condemn  the  gun  for  shooting  the  man — the  avalanche 
for  burying  the  city — the  falling  tree  for  crushing  the 
traveler;  but,  according  to  Calvinism,  in  Mr.  Dick's  own 
language,  man  is  as  merely  passive  in  the  hands  of  over- 
ruling power.  Why  punish  him  for  murder,  for  arson, 
or  any  grade  of  crime?  He  is  the  author  of  no  choice — 
the  sovereign  of  no  act;  he  is  but  the  instrument  of  an 
invisible  agent — moving  as  moved  upon,  without  power 
of  resistance.  He  is  the  original  in  no  movement  of  his 
life,  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave.  Why,  in  the  name  of 
humanity,  punish  him  ? 

'7.  I  object  to  the  system  further,  as  involving,  by  in- 
evitable consequence,  a  most  dreadful  aspersion  of  the 
character  of  God.  It  gives  me  no  pleasure  to  prefer 
such  a  charge  as  this  against  a  system,  many  of  whose 
advocates  I  dearly  love  and  greatly  admire ;  and,  I  will 
Bay,  much  less  does  it  give  me  pleasure  to  find  so  much 
evidence  that  the  charge  is  well  founded.  But  I  do  so. 
Doctor,  that  you  may  see  how  other  minds  view  your 
system,  and  that  you  may  disabuse  them,  if  in  error. 

(1.)  The  system  holds,  as  I  think  has  been  clearly  shown, 
that  God  is  the  sole,  original,  voluntary  author  of  sin — that 
he  chose  its  existence  when  as  yet  it  did  not  exist,  and 


66  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

decreed  it  when,  but  for  his  decree,  it  never  could  have 
been — thus  declaring  that  he  preferred  some  sin  to  universal 
holiness,  if,  indeed,  his  own  decree  was  his  choice — thus 
insulting  the  purity  and  holiness  of  God — making  him,  not, 
indeed,  the  most  holy,  but  the  only  unholy  being  in  the 
universe — the  cause  and  source  of  all  impurity,  as  he  is  the 
cause  of  all  creatures. 

(2.)  It  asperses  the  goodness  and  benevolence  of  God, 
and  invests  him  with  all  the  attributes  of  sheer  cruelty  and 
maliciousness;  because  it  holds  that  he  made  the  universe 
as  it  is,  and,  for  his  own  pleasure  and  glory,  plunged  it 
himself  into  all  the  miseries,  temporal  and  eternal,  which  it 
endures,  or  is  to  endure.  It  will  not  do  to  tell  me,  that 
these  miseries  are  the  just  punishments  of  sins,  for  you  told 
me  he  caused  the  sins ;  and  if  he  caused  them,  and  damns 
the  universe  for  them,  it  renders  the  cruelty  more  revolting. 

(3.)  It  asperses  the  justice  of  God;  for  it  tells  me,  that 
God  will  destroy  many  of  his  creatures  in  hell  for  ever, 
with  unimaginable  torments,  for  not  performing  absolute 
impossibilities,  and  for  doing  acts  which  were  utterly  una- 
voidable— acts  which  he  himself  caused.  What  would  be 
the  difference  between  consisfninsf  innumerable  bcinc^s  into 
hell  for  ever,  who  had  never  put  forth  a  wrong  volition,  or 
pei-formed  a  wrong  action,  and  making  them,  by  Omnipotent 
agency,  first  perpetrate  these  wrongs,  and  then,  upon  this 
pretense,  damn  them,  as  supposed  in  the  former  case  ?  Can 
this  be  just? 

(4.)  The  system  asperses  the  truthfulness  and  sincerity 
of  God — making  him  to  pretend  to  be  of  one  mind,  when 
he  is  precisely  of  an  opposite — clothing  him  with  all  the 
lothsorae  proofs  of  trickery,  and  hypocrisy,  and  duphcity, 
for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  his  hapless  creatures  as  to  his 
own  character,  and  the  reasons  of  his  conduct  in  respect  to 
tliem.  It  arrays  his  secret  and  his  revealed  will  in  unavoid- 
;».ble  and  open  conflict — the  one  in  unmitigated  opposition 


CHAP.  II.  I  GOD*S  ETERNAL  DECREES.  57 

to  the  other.  He  commands  one  thing,  and  wills  precisely 
another — enjoins  upon  certain  creatures  to  do  those  things, 
which  he  not  only  knows 'they  cannot  do,  but,  also,  what  ho 
does  not  will  they  should  do — nay,  what  he  wills  they 
should  not  do.  It  puts  in  his  mouth  the  language,  "  I  have 
no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth,"  when,  in  fact, 
they  die  for  his  pleasure — makes  him  to  plead  and  remon- 
strate with  them,  as  if  he  would  dissuade  them  from  their 
sin  and  ruin,  when,  in  fact,  he  is  the  very  being  who  urges 
them  irresistibly  on  to  sin  and  ruin.  He  commands  one 
thing  and  decrees  precisely  the  contrary.  He  commands 
the  sinner  to  repent,  but  decrees  he  shall  not.  Well,  now, 
when  he  commands  the  sinner  to  repent,  either  he  wills  that 
the  sinner  should  obey  and  repent,  or  he  does  not — if  he 
does  not,  then  he  commands  the  sinner  to  do  what  he  does 
not  will  he  should,  or  he  commands  him  to  violate  his  will ; 
which  command,  if  the  sinner  were  to  obey,  he  would  damn 
him  for  ever  for  violating  his  will,  but,  if  he  does  not  obey, 
he  will  damn  him  for  ever  for  violating  his  command.  But, 
agfain:  if  the  command  indicates  the  will  of  God,  so,  also, 
does  the  decree,  or  it  does  not — if  it  does  not,  then  God 
has  decreed,  or  purposed,  or  willed,  that  that  should  come 
to  pass,  which  he  did  not  will  should  come  to  pass.  But, 
if  his  decree  is  his  will,  and  his  command  is  his  will,  and 
these  are  opposite  the  one  to  the  other,  then  God  has  two 
opposing  wills,  or  a  will  in  opposition  to  itself.  His  will  is 
always  done ;  and  why,  then,  does  he  punish  one  and  damn 
another,  when  both  alike  and  equally  accomphshed  his 
will  ?  What  havoc  such  a  theory  makes  with  the  character 
and  government  of  God  ! 

Is  this  so?  "Is  God  at  w^ar  with  himself,  or  is  he 
sporting  and  trifling  with  his  creatures?  A  character  so 
suspicious,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  ought  not,  without  the 
most  unequivocal  evidence,  to  be  attributed  to  the  adora- 
ble Jehovah.     In  his  word  we  are  taught  that  *he  is  of  one 


58  god's  eternal  decrees.  [chap.  II. 

mind ' — that  '  his  ways  are  equal ;'  and  who  can  doubt  it  ? 
We  are  told,  it  is  true,  to  relieve  the  difficulty,  that  tliis 
seemhig  contradiction  is  one  of  -the  mysteries  of  God's 
incomprehensible  nature.  But  it  is  not  a  seeming  contra- 
diction— it  is  a  real  one ;  not  an  insolvable  mystery,  but  a 
palpable  absurdity.  God  j^^ohibits  the  sinful  act — God 
jjrocures  the  sinful  act — God  wills  the  salvation  of  the  repro- 
bate, whom  he  has,  from  all  eternity,  irreversible/  ordained  to 
eternal  death.''^  "What  does  this  doctrine  make  of  our 
heavenly  Father  ?  I  shudder  to  follow  it  out  into  its  legiti- 
mate bearings.  It  seems  to  me,  a  belief  of  it  is  enough  to 
drive  one  to  infidelity,  to  madness,  and  to  death."  What 
can  be  said  reproachful  of  God,  of  his  hohness,  of  his 
justice,  of  his  veracity,  of  his  goodness,  which  this  system 
does  not  warrant — which  does  not  flow  from  it  as  an  inevita- 
ble consequence  ?  A  resort  to  Atheism,  to  any  thing,  would 
be  a  dehverance  from  such  dire  and  deplorable  conclusions. 
I  rejoice  to  know  that  its  advocates  do  not  embrace  them; 
but  will  they  tell  us  how  they  do — how  we  may  escape 
them?  Until  I  am  thus  relieved,  I  must  hold  the  system 
guilty,  not  only  of  absurdity,  but  of  enormous  blasphemy, 
in  fact,  though  not  of  purpose. 

8.  "  God,  from  all  eternity,  freely  and  unchangeably  fore- 
ordained whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  Now  look  at  this: 
If  true,  then  God  foredetermined,  purposed,  and  appointed, 
when  as  yet  there  was  nothing,  and  when  nothing  ever 
could  be  without  his  decree,  all  the  events,  acts,  volitions, 
and  things  of  every  kind,  that  ever  have  been,  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  or  ever  will  be  throughout  eter- 
nity— all  things,  great  and  small,  true  and  false,  consistent 
and  absurd,  bad  and  good,  pleasant  and  disgusting.  No 
contradiction,  but  what  he  decreed  it.  He  appointed,  in  a 
way  that  the  event  must  answer  the  decree,  and  so  because 
decreed,  that  all  the  contradictory  views  extant  in  the  world 
should  be  entertained  just  as  they  are — that  there  should 


CHAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  59 

be  Atheists,  Pantheists,  Deists,  infidels,  Jews,  Moham- 
medans, Pagans,  all  grades  of  idolaters  and  errorists,  all 
varieties  of  Chi-istians,  and  sects  of  philosophy.  And 
these  cannot  but  be,  because  they  were  decreed  from  eter- 
nity. One  man  was  to  pray,  another  blaspheme,  another 
lie,  another  rob,  another  murder,  another  steal,  another 
commit  arson,  incest,  adultery — one  deceive,  another  be 
deceived,  and  all  because  it  was  decreed  from  eternity. 
All  thoughts,  all  words,  all  desires,  all  purposes,  all  voli- 
tions, all  acts,  from  first  to  last,  were  decreed  by  God,  and 
in  such  a  way  that  the  event  must  answer  the  decree. 
Now,  all  this  is  true,  or  else  Calvinism  is  false ;  for  Calvin- 
ism says,  "  God,  from  eternity,  freely  and  unchangeably 
decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  Every  thing  was 
included  in  God's  plan,  and  brought  about  by  his  decree. 
Doctor,  do  you  believe  this  ? 

9.  I  charge  upon  the  system  further,  that,  if  gener- 
ally believed,  it  is  calculated  to  obliterate  the  sense  of 
obligation,  as  well  as  the  theory  and  fact  of  it,  and,  hence, 
to  generate  recklessness  and  universal  indifference.  By 
removing  the  idea  of  the  possibility  of  reformation,  or, 
mdeed,  of  any  responsible  control  over  the  character  and 
actions,  it  effectually  neutralizes  every  motive  thereto,  and 
<iauses  the  man  to  throw  himself  rashly  upon  the  bosom  of 
that  stream  of  fate,  which  he  believes  to  be  irresistible  in 
its  current  and  tendencies.  Why  shall  a  sinner  seek  to 
reform,  when  he  knows  he  cannot  ?  Why  shall  he  regret 
his  course  and  conduct,  when  he  knows  they  were  inevita- 
ble ?  Why  shall  he  raise  any  questions  about  the  future, 
when  he  knows  that  fate  has  fixed  it  irrevocably,  irrespec- 
tive of  him?  Why  shall  he  intermeddle,  in  any  respect, 
with  his  state,  character,  or  prospects,  when  they  are  no 
more  subject  to  him  than  are  the  revolutions  of  Saturn? 
To  believe  the  doctrine,  a  man  must  close  his  eyes,  and 
yield  himself  u^  passively,  unresistingly,  into  the  hands  of 


60  god's  eternal  decrees.  Lciiap.  II, 

fate,  submitting  to  all  that  pertains  to  him  as  inevitable  and 
right,  because  procured  by  the  Almighty.  Every  impulse 
a  man  feels  toward  regret,  or  reformation,  or  effort  in  his 
own  behalf,  is  a  practical  denial  of  the  doctrine.  It  does 
not  relieve  the  case  a  particle,  to  tell  the  man,  that  though 
final  destiny  is  fixed  by  decree,  yet  means  are  decreed,  also, 
as  well  as  destiny — the  same  difficulty  remains.  If  the 
means  are  decreed — or,  in  other  words,  the  sins  to  be  an 
occasion  of  his  damnation,  or  the  virtues  to  be  a  pretense 
for  his  salvation — he  knows  that  he  has  nothing  to  do  but 
passively  submit.  What  else  can  he  do  ?  Can  he  move 
only  as  moved  upon  ?  Can  he  fail  to  move  when  moved 
upon?  Doctor,  can  he  do  any  thing,  any  thing  under 
heaven,  but  what  God  r^  kes  him  do?  If  so,  what?  If 
not,  why  be  careful  ? 

Will  you  appeal  to  facts  in  proof  that  such  is  not  the 
tendency  of  your  system?  I  shall  reply,  that  they  are 
incompetent  to  meet  the  case ;  that,  admitting  them  to  be 
diflferent  from  what  it  is  alledged  the  system  would  make 
them,  this  would  only  prove  that  it — the  system — had  not 
always  worked  out  its  legitimate  results ;  that  the  bad  and 
disastrous  influence  had,  in  some  instances,  been  counter- 
acted by  the  presence  of  some  wholesome  element.  But 
the  facts,  it  is  believed,  so  far  from  contradicting  the  above 
reasonings,  do  amply  corroborate  them — so  far  from  antago- 
nizing us,  do  most  fully  sustain  us.  Calvinism  has  produced, 
and  does  now  produce,  the  fruits  charged  against  it ;  it  does 
so,  not  only  in  some,  but  in  many,  if  not  in  all  instances, 
where  it  is  not  neutralized  by  the  presence  of  more  power- 
ful principles  of  belief,  existing  coetaneously  in  the  mind. 
It  is  innocent  only  when  it  is  practically  disbelieved.  Here 
is  a  Calvinistic  fatalist  in  theory,  but  really,  and  at  heart,  a 
man  who  is  conscious  of  freedom  and  responsibility:  the 
man  may  be,  notwithstanding  his  theoretical  error,  a 
most  exemplary  and  consistent  Christian.     The  reason  i.s 


CHAP.  II.]  god's  eternal  DECREES.  61 

manifest — his  practice  results,  not  from  his  theoretical  creed, 
but  from  his  actual  consciousness — it  is  good  in  despite  of 
the  former,  and  in  accordance  with  the  latter.  But  once 
let  him  yield  all  to  his  belief  of  fatalism — let  him  silence 
the  voice  of  his  reason  and  consciousness,  and  of  God,  and 
give  himself  up  to  a  firm  belief  of  fate,  and  then  you  shall 
see,  as  you  have  often  seen,  all  the  results  ascribed  to  sucli 
a  faith. 

10.  I  object  further  to  the  system,  that  it  is  wholly 
without  support,  either  from  Scripture  or  reason.  This,  I 
am  apprised,  is  saying  much,  but  no  more  than  I  con- 
scientiously believe  to  be  true ;  and  I  can  only  be  convinced 
of  error,  by  hearing,  from  Dr.  Rice,  such  arguments  as  I 
have  not  been  able  to  discover  in  the  writings  of  the  various 
authors  quoted  in  this  volume,  and  many  others  not  quoted, 
with  which  I  have  been  accustomed  to  commune  for  years. 

I  have  endeavored  to  speak  plainly,  and  to  make  myself 
understood  upon  these  points;  but  I  beg  you  to  believe 
that  I  have  felt  no  unkindness,  and  have  said  nothing 
with  the  thought  of  ofifending.  Indeed,  I  assure  you,  I 
have  studied  to  use  mildness ;  and  have,  therefore,  left 
many  things  unsaid,  which  seemed  almost  necessary,  to 
show  you  the  full  extent  of  the  difficulties  which  I  find 
pressing  your  system.  I  have  purposely  avoided  naming 
many  other  real  objections — contenting  myself,  for  the 
present,  with  referring  to  those  which  are  so  palpable,  as 
to  meet  every  mind  at  the  threshold  of  an  inquiry  into  youi 
system,  and  so  weighty,  as  to  startle  the  cautious  inquirei 
at  the  boldness  of  doctrines  involving  such  conclusions. 


62  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [ciIAP.  III. 

CHAPTER   III. 

ELECTION    AND    REPROBATION. 

We  sliall  now  proceed  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  decrees 
with  relation  to  election  and  reprobation  particularly.  And, 
as  in  the  former  case,  we  shall  appeal  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  to  accredited  Calvinistic  authors.  Our  object 
is  to  know  precisely  what  our  Presbyterian  brethren  do 
believe.  We  appeal,  therefore,  to  their  own  statements 
and  explanations.  From  the  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter 
lii,  I  read : 

"Section  3.  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation 
of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto 
everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  unto  everlastirig 
death. 

''Section  4.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated 
and  foreordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably  de- 
signed, and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite,  thaf. 
it   cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished. 

"  Section  5.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated 
unto  life,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was 
laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immutable  purpose,  and 
the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath 
chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere 
free  grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works,  or  perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other 
thing  in  the  creature,  as  conditions  or  causes  moving  him 
thereto,  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace. 

"Section  6.  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory, 
so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose  of  his 
will,  foreordained  all  the  means  thereunto.  Wherefore 
they,  who  are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  re- 
deemed by  Christ — are  effectually  called  unto  faith  in 
(Christ  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season — are  justified, 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  RErROBATION.  63 

adopted,  sanctified,  and  kept  by  his  power  through  faith 
unto  salvation.  Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  hy  Christ, 
effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  but  the  elect 
only. 

"Section  Y.  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased,  ac- 
cording to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  will,  whereby 
he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for 
the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to 
pass  by  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their 
sins,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice." 

Of  effectual  calling: 

"Section  1.  All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated 
unto  life,  and  these  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed 
and  accepted  time,  efi"ectually  to  call,  by  his  word  and 
Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death,  in  which  they 
are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ, 
enlightening  their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly  to  God, 
taking  their  hearts  of  stone  and  giving  them  a  heart  of 
flesh,  renewing  their  wills,  by  his  almighty  power  de- 
termining them  to  that  which  is  good,  and  effectually 
drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ,  yet  so  as  they  come  most 
freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace. 

"Section  2.  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and 
special  grace  alone,  not  from  any  thing  at  all  foreseen 
in  man,  who  is  altogether  passive  therein,  until,  being 
quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby 
enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace  the  grace 
oflered  and  conveyed  in  it. 

"Section  3.  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regen- 
erated and  saved  by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit,  who 
worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth.  So, 
also,  are  other  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word. 

"Section  4.  Others  not  elected,  although  they  may  be 
called   by  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  may  have  some 


64  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP    III. 

common  operations  of  the  Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly 
come  to  Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved,  much  less 
can  men,  not  professing  the  Christian  rehgion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to 
frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the 
law  of  that  religion  they  do  possess;  and  to  assert  and 
maintain  that  they  may,  is  very  pernicious,  and  to  be  de- 
tested." 

Of  the  'perseverance  of  the  saints: 

"Section  1.  They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  his  be- 
loved, effectually  called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can 
neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of 
grace,  but  shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end, 
and  be  eternally  saved. 

"Section  2.  This  perseverance  of  the  saints  depends  not 
upon  their  own  free  will,  hut  upon  the  immutability  of  the 
decree  of  election,  flowing  from  the  free  and  unchanging 
love  of  God  the  Father,  upon  the  efficacy  of  the  merit 
and  intercession  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  abiding  of  the  Spirit 
and  of  th§  seed  of  God  within  them,  and  the  nature  of 
the  covenant  of  grace ;  from  all  which  ariseth  the  certainty 
and  infallibility  thereof." 

I  have  quoted  thus  largely  from  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
that  my  readers  may  have  the  benefit  of  a  full  view  of  the 
whole  scheme  of  unconditional  salvation  as  taught  by  Cal- 
vinists — all  that  enters  into  and  renders  effectual  the  de- 
cree of  election  and  reprobation.  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
quote,  as  corroborative  and  explanatory  of  these  articles  of 
faith,  from  various  authors,  who  are  supposed  to  under- 
stand the  system,  and  who  have  proved  their  friendship 
for  it  by  giving  their  lives  to  its  support.  But  a  quota- 
tion or  two  from  the  Larger  Catechism : 

"What  is  efiectual  calhng? 

''Effectual  calling  is  the  work  of  God's  almighty  powei 
and  grace,  whereby,  out  of  his  free  and  especial  love  to  hia 


OHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  65 

elect,  and  from  nothing  in  tliern  moving  him  thereunto,  he 
doth,  in  his  accepted  time,  invite  and  draw  them  to  Jesus 
Christ  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  savingly  enlightening  their 
minds,  renewing  and  powerfully  determining  their  wills,  so 
as  they,  although  in  themselves  dead  in  sin,  are  hereby 
made  willing  and  able  freely  to  answer  his  call,  and  to  ac- 
cept and  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  therein." 

"Are  the  elect  only  effectually  called? 

"All  tlie  elect,  and  they  oyily,  are  effectually  called, 
although  others  may  be  and  often  are  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  have  some  common  opera- 
tions of  the  Spirit,  who  for  their  willful  neglect  and  contempt 
of  the  grace  offered  to  them,  being  justly  left  in  their 
unbelief,  do  never  truly  come  to  Jesus  Christ." 

"There  is  no  doubt  but  the  preparation  of  them  both — 
elect  and  reprobate — doth  depend  upon  the  secret  counsel 
of  God;  otherwise,  Paul  had  said  the  reprobates  give  or 
cast  themselves  into  destruction ;  but  now  he  giveth  to  wit, 
that  before  they  are  boi'n  they  are  addicted  to  their  lot.** 
(Calvin.) 

I  quote  further  from  the  exposition : 

"  The  decree  of  God,  with  respect  to  the  everlasting  state 
of  men  and  angels,  is  known  by  the  name  of  predestination : 
and  this  consists  of  two  branches,  generally  distinguished 
by  the  name  of  election  and  reprobation. 

"Our  Confession  teaches  that  God  made  choice  of  and 
predestinated  a  certain  and  definite  number  of  individuals 
to  everlasting  life — that  he  predestinated  them  to  life  before 
tlie  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid — that,  in  so  doing,  he 
acted  according  to  his  sovereign  will,  and  was  not  influenced 
by  the  foresight  of  their  faith  or  good  works,  or  persever- 
ance in  either  of  them ;  and  that  this  purpose  is  immutable, 
it  being  impossible  that  any  of  the  elect  should  perish. 
(P.  65.) 

"Christ  died  exclusively  for   the   elect,  and   puic based 


66  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

redemption  for  them  alone;  in  other  words,  Christ  made 
V  atonement  only  for  the  elect,  and  in  no  sense  did  he  die  for 
the  rest  of  the  race.  Our  Confession  first  asserts  positively 
that  the  elect  are  redeemed  by  Christ,  and  then  negatively 
that  none  others  are  redeemed  by  Christ  but  the  elect  only. 
If  this  does  not  affirm  the  doctrine  of  particular  redemption, 
or  of  a  limited  atonement,  we  know  not  what  language 
could  express  that  doctrine  more  explicitly.  Some  who 
allow  of  personal  and  eternal  election,  deny  any  such  thing 
as  reprobation.  But  the  one  unavoidably  follows  from  the 
other ;  for  the  choice  of  some  must  unavoidably  imply  the 
rejection  of  others.  Election  and  rejection  are  correlative 
terms ;  and  men  impose  upon  themselves,  and  imagine  they 
conceive  what  it  is  impossible  to  conceive,  when  they  admit 
election,  and  deny  reprobation."     (P.  70.) 

From  the  Larger  Catechism : 

"What  hath  God  especially  decreed  concerning  angels 
and  men?  God,  by  an  eternal  and  immutable  decree,  out 
of  his  mere  love  for  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace,  to  be 
manifested  in  due  time,  hath  elected  some  angels  to  glory, 
and  in  Christ  hath  chosen  some  men  to  eternal  life,  and  the 
means  thereof;  and,  also,  according  to  his  sovereign  power, 
and  the  imsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  hath  passed 
by,  and  foreordained  the  rest  to  dishonor  and  wrath,  to  be 
for  their  sin  inflicted,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his 
justice." 

"Many,  indeed,  as  if  they  wished  to  avert  odium  from 
God,  admit  election  in  such  a  way  as  to  deny  that  any  one 
is  reprobated.  But  this  is  puerile  and  absurd,  because 
election  itself  could  not  exist  without  being  opposed  to 
reprobation.  Whom  God  passes  by,  therefore,  he  repro- 
bates ;  and  from  no  other  cause  than  his  determmation  to 
exclude  them  from  the  inheritance  which  he  predestines  for 
his  chilflren."     (Calvin's  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  1 63.) 

"  Though  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  God,  in  his  secrei 


CUAF.  III.J  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  61 

counsel,  freely  chooses  whom  he  will,  and  rejects  others, 
his  gratuitous  election  is  but  half  displayed  till  we  come  tc 
particular  individuals,  to  whom  God  not  only  offers  salva- 
tion, but  assigns  it  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  certainty  is 
liable  to  no  suspicion  or  doubt."     (lb.) 

**  Predestination  we  call  the  eternal  decree  of  God,  by 
which  he  has  determined  in  himself  what  he  would  have 
to  become  of  every  individual  of  mankind ;  for  they  are  not 
all  created  with  a  similar  destiny,  but  eternal  life  is  foreor- 
dained for  some,  and  eternal  damnation  for  others.  Every 
man,  therefore,  being  created  for  one  or  other  of  these  ends, 
we  say  he  is  predestinated  either  to  life  or  death."  (lb., 
vol.  ii,  p.  145. 

"  The  term  predestination  includes  the  decree  of  election 
and  reprobation.  Some,  indeed,  confine  it  to  election,  but 
there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  not  extending  it  to 
the  one  as  well  as  the  other,  as  in  both  the  final  condition 
of  man  is  preappointed  or  predestinated.  When  a  choice 
is  made,  we  must  conceive  that  of  a  number  of  persons 
some  are  taken,  others  are  left.  Election  is  a  relative  term, 
and  necessarily  involves  the  idea  of  rejection."  (Dick's 
Theology.) 

"  There  seems  to  be  no  reason,  therefore,  for  denying,  that 
what  is  called  reprobation  was  a  positive  decree,  as  well  as 
election."     (lb.) 

"But,  although  the  fall  is  presupposed  to  their  reproba- 
tion, it  will  appear  that  the  former  was  not  the  reason  of 
the  latter,  if  we  recollect  that  those  who  were  chosen  to 
salvation  were  exactly  in  the  same  situation.  If  there  was 
sin  in  the  reprobate,  there  was  sin,  also,  in  the  elect;  and 
we  must,  therefore,  resolve  their  opposite  allotments  into 
the  will  of  God,  who  gives  and  withholds  his  favor  accord- 
ing to  his  pleasure."     (lb.) 

"A  decree,  respecting  the  condition  of  the  human  race, 
includes   the   history  of   every  individual,   the  time  of  his 


68  EVECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [CHAP.  III. 

appearing  upon  earth,  the  manner  of  his  existence  while  he 
is  an  inhabitant  of  earth,  as  it  is  diversified  by  the  actions 
which  he  performs,  and  the  manner  of  his  existence  after 
he  leaves  the  earth ;  that  is,  his  future  happiness  or  misery. 
Whence  it  followeth,  that  this  knowledge — foreknowledge 
of  the  elect — dependeth  upon  the  good  pleasure  of  God, 
because  God  foreknew  nothing,  out  of  himself,  touching 
those  he  would  adopt,  but  only  marked  out  whom  he  would 
elect."     (Calvin.) 

"  Now  he  doth  refer  the  whole  cause  unto  the  election  of 
God,  and  the  same  free,  and  such  as  doth  not  depend  upon 
men ;  that,  in  the  salvation  of  the  godly,  nothing  might  be 
sought  for  above  the  goodness  of  God,  and  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  reprobate  nothing  above  his  just  severity.^'     (I^-) 

"Moreover,  although  the  corruption  of  nature,  which  is 
dispersed  over  all  mankind,  before  it  come  into  action,  is 
available  enough  unto  condemnation,  whereby  followeth 
that  Esau  was  worthily  rejected,  because  naturally  he  was 
the  son  of  wrath;  yet,  lest  any  doubt  should  remain,  as 
though,  through  respect  of  any  fault  or  sin,  his  condition  was 
the  worse,  it  was  necessary  that  as  well  sins  as  virtues  should 
be  excluded/  Surely,  true  it  is,  that  the  next  cause  of 
reprobation  is,  for  that  we  are  all  accursed  in  Adam,  yet,  to 
the  end  we  might  rest  in  the  bare  and  simple  will  of  God, 
Paul  did  lead  us  aside  from  the  consideration  thereof  for  so 
long  until  he  had  estabhshed  this  doctrine,  namely,  that 
God  hath  a  sufficient,  just  cause  of  election  and  reprobation 
in  his  own  loill  or  pleasure.'^     (lb.) 

"And,  therefore,  that  doctrine  is  false,  and  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God,  namely,  that  God  doth  choose,  or  reject, 
as  he  foreseeth  every  man  worthy  or  unworthy  of  his 
grace."     (lb.) 

**  God  hath  elected  some,  and  rejected  other  some,  and 
the  cause  is  nowhere  else  to  be  sought  for  than  in  his  pur- 
pose."    (lb.) 


CHAP.  III. J  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  60 

"  To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemption, 
he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the 
same."     (Confession  of  Faith.) 

Either  Christ  applies  and  communicates  redemption  to  all, 
and  then  Universalism  is  true,  or  he  did  not  purchase  re- 
demption for  all,  and  so  the  reprobates  never  were  redeemed- 

Upon  this  point  the  expositor  says : 

"  This  section  relates  to  the  extent  of  Christ's  death  with 
respect  to  its  objects;  and,  in  opposition  to  the  Arminian 
tenet,  that  Christ  died  for  all,  it  affirms  that  the  purchase 
and  application  of  redemption  are  exactly  of  the  same  ex- 
tent. In  the  fifth  section  we  were  taught,  that  Christ 
purchased  redemption  only  for  '  those  whom  the  Father 
hath  given  unto  him ;'  and  here  it  is  asserted,  that  *  to  all 
those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemption,  he  doth 
certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the  same.* 
What  language,  then,  could  affirm  more  explicitly,  than 
that  here  employed,  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  specific 
and  limited;  that  it  is  neither  universal  nor  indefinite,  but 
restricted  to  the  elect  ?^' 

This  view  of  the  atonement  is  sustained  with  elaborate  ar- 
gumentation by  Mr.  Shaw,  showing  how  well  and  thoroughly 
he  had  considered  the  doctrine.  As  a  specimen  of  his  logic 
in  this  case,  and  I  regret  to  say  I  find  such  specimens 
abounding  throughout  the  system,  and  in  the  writings  of 
those  eminent  men  w^ho  have  so  strangely  enlisted  in  its 
advocacy:  "  Universal  terms  are  sometimes  used  in  Scrip- 
ture in  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ;  but  reason  and 
common  sense  demand  that  general  phrases  be  explained  and 
defined  by  those  that  are  special P' 

"  God  chose,  of  the  whole  body  of  mankind,  whom  he 
viewed  in  his  eternal  decree  as  involved  in  guilt  and  misery, 
certain  persons,  who  are  called  the  elect,  whose  names  are 
known  to  him,  and  whose  number,  being  unchangeably  fixed 
by  his  decree,  can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished  ;  so 


70  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAr.  III. 

that  the  whole  extent  of  the  remedy  offered  in  the  Gospel, 
is  conceived  to  have  been  determined  beforehand  by  the 
Divine  decree.  As  all  the  children  of  Adam  were  in- 
volved in  the  same  guilt  and  misery,  the  persons  thus 
chosen  had  nothing  in  themselves  to  render  them  more 
worthy  of  being  elected  than  any  others;  and  therefore 
the  decree  of  election  is  called,  in  the  Calvinistic  system, 
absolute,  by  which  word  is  meant,  that  it  arises  entirely 
from  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  because  all  the  circum- 
stances, which  distinguish  the  elect  from  others,  are  the 
fruits  of  their  election.  For  the  persons  thus  chosen, 
God,  from  the  beginning,  appointed  the  means  of  their 
being  delivered  from  corruption  and  guilt,  and  by  these 
means,  effectually  applied  in  due  season,  he  conducts  them 
at  kngth  unto  everlasting  life.  From  the  election  of  cer- 
tain persons,  it  necessarily  follows  that  all  the  rest  of  the 
race  of  Adam  are  left  in  guilt  and  misery.  The  exercise 
of  Divine  sovereignty,  in  regard  to  those  who  are  not 
elected,  is  called  reprobation;  and  the  condition  of  all 
having  been  originally  the  same,  reprobation  is  called  ab- 
solute in  the  same  sense  with  election."     (Hill's  Divinity.) 

"I  say,  with  Augustine,  that  the  Lord  created  those 
who  he  certainly  foreknew  would  fall  into  destruction,  and 
that  this  was  actually  so,  because  he  willed  it."  (Calvin's 
Institutes.) 

"Observe,  all  things  being  at  God's  disposal,  and  the 
decision  of  salvation  and  death  belonging  to  him,  he 
orders  all  things  by  his  counsel  and  decree  in  such  a  man- 
ner, that  some  men  are  born  devoted,  from  the  womb,  to 
certain  death,  that  his  name  may  be  glorified  in  their 
destruction."     (lb.,  vol  ii,  p.  169.) 

"It  is  an  awful  decree,  I  must  confess;  but  no  one  can 
deny  that  God  foreknew  the  future,  final  fate  of  man  be- 
fore he  created  him,  a/id  that  he  did  foreknow  it,  because 
it  was   appointed  by  him,  or  decreed.     Nor  should  it  be 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  72 

thouglit  absurd  to  affirm  that  God  not  only  foresaw  tne 
fall  of  the  first  man,  and  the  ruin  of  his  posterity  in  him, 
but  also  arranged  all  by  the  determination  of  his  own  will. 
For  as  it  belongs  to  his  wisdom  to  foreknow  things  future, 
so  it  belongs  to  his  power  to  rule  and  govern  all  things  by 
his  hand."     (lb.,  vol.  ii,  p.  IVO.) 

"But  I  mean  that  the  actions  of  men  are  foreseen  by 
God,  not  as  events  independent  of  his  will,  but  as  origi- 
nating in  his  determination,  and  as  fulfilling  his  purpose." 
(Hill's  Divinity.) 

"Foolish  mortals  enter  into  many  contentions  with  God, 
as  though  they  could  arraign  him,  to  plead  their  accusa- 
tions. In  the  first  place,  they  inquire  by  what  right  the 
Lord  is  angry  with  his  creatures,  who  have  not  provoked 
him  by  any  previous  offense ;  for  that  to  devote  to  destruc- 
tion whom  he  pleases  is  more  like  the  caprice  of  a  tyrant, 
than  the  lawful  sentence  of  a  judge;  that  men  have 
reason,  therefore,  to  expostulate  with  God,  if  they  are 
predestinated  to  eternal  death,  without  any  demerit  of 
their  own,  merely  by  his  sovereign  will.  If  such  thoughts 
ever  enter  the  minds  of  pious  men,  they  will  be  sufficiently 
enabled  to  break  their  violence  by  this  one  consideration — 
how  exceedingly  presumptuous  it  is  only  to  inquire  into 
the  causes  of  the  Divine  will;  which  is,  in  fact,  and  is 
justly/  entitled  to  be,  the  cause  of  every  thing  that  exists. 
For  if  it  has  any  cause,  then  there  must  be  something 
antecedent,  on  which  it  depends,  which  it  is  impious  to 
suppose.  For  the  will  of  God  is  the  highest  rule  of  jus- 
tice; so  that  what  he  wills  must  be  considered  just,  for 
this  very  reason — because  he  wills  it.  When  it  is  inquired, 
therefore,  why  the  Lord  did  so,  the  answer  must  be,  be- 
cause he  would."     (Calvin's  Institutes.) 

"He  directs  his  voice  to  them,  but  it  is  that  they  may 
become  more  deaf;  he  kindles  a  light,  but  it  is  that  they 
may  be  made  more  blind ;  he  pubHshes  his  doctrine,  but  it 


72  ELECTION  AND  REruOBATION.  [cHAr.  III. 

is  that  tliey  may  become  more  besotted;  he  apphes  a 
remedy,  but  it  is  that  they  may  not  be  healed.  .  .  . 
Nor  can  it  be  disputed,  that,  to  such  persons  as  God 
determines  not  to  enlighten,  he  delivers  his  doctrine  in 
enigmatical  obscurity,  that  its  only  effect  may  be  to  in- 
crease their  stupidity."     (Calvin's  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  192.) 

"That  the  reprobates  obey  not  the  word  of  God,  when 
made  tnown  to  them,  is  justly  imputed  to  the  wickedness 
and  depravity  of  their  hearts;  provided  it  he,  at  the  same 
time,  stated  that  they  are  abandoned  to  this  depravity, 
because  they  have  been  raised  up,  by  a  just  but  inscrutable 
judgment  of  God,  to  dis2:>lay  his  glory  in  their  condemna- 
tion. So,  when  it  is  related  of  the  sons  of  Eli,  that  they 
listened  not  to  his  salutary  admonitions,  *  because  the  Lord 
would  slay  them,'  it  is  not  denied  that  their  obstinacy 
proceeded  from  their  own  wickedness,  but  it  is  plainly 
implied,  that  though  the  Lord  was  able  to  soften  their 
hearts,  yet  they  were  left  in  their  obstinacy,  because  his 
immutable  decree  had  predestined  them  to  destruction." 
(Calvin's  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  p.  193.) 

"  Term  election  most  commonly  signifies,  that  eternal, 
sovereign,  unconditional,  particular,  and  immutable  act  of 
God,  whereby  he  selected  some  from  all  mankind,  and  of 
every  nation  under  heaven,  to  be  redeemed  and  everlast- 
ingly saved  by  Christ.  It  sometimes,  and  more  rarely, 
signifies  that  gracious  and  almighty  act  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  whereby  God  actually  and  visibly  separates  his  elect 
from  the  world,  by  effectual  calling."     (Zanchius,  p.  '72.) 

*'  Reprobation  denotes  either  God's  eternal  pretention  of 
some  men,  when  he  chose  others  to  glory,  and  his  predes- 
tination of  them  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities, 
and  then  to  receive  the  just  punishment  of  crimes,  even 
'  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  tlie 
glory  of  his  power.'  This  is  the  primary,  most  obvious,  and 
most  frequent  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used."     (lb.,  p.  74  ) 


CHAF.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  "  73 

Predestination  "  may  be  considered  as  that  eternal,  most 
wise,  and  immutable  decree  of  God,  whereby  he  did,  from 
before  all  time,  determine  and  ordain  to  create,  dispose  of, 
and  direct  to  some  particular  end,  every  person  and  thing 
to  which  he  has  given,  or  is  yet  to  give,  being;  and  to 
make  the  whole  creation  subservient  to,  and  declarative  of 
his  own  glory.  Of  this  decree  actual  providence  is  the 
execution."     (lb.,  p.  11.) 

"Consider  predestination  as  relating  to  the  elect  only, 
and  it  is  that  eternal,  unconditional,  particular,  and  irrever- 
sible act  of  the  Didne  will,  whereby,  in  matchless  love  and 
adorable  sovereignty,  God  determined  within  himself,  to 
deliver  a  certain  number  of  Adam's  degenerate  offspring 
out  of  that  sinful  and  miserable  estate  into  which,  by  his 
primitive  transgression,  they  were  to  fall,  and  in  which  sad 
condition  they  were  equally  involved  with  those  who  were 
not  chosen ;  but  being  pitched  upon  and  singled  out  by  God 
the  Father,  to  be  vessels  of  grace  and  salvation,  they  were, 
in  time,  actually  redeemed  by  Christ — are  effectually  called 
by  his  Spirit,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  preserved 
safe  to  his  heavenly  kingdom."     (lb.,  p.  19.) 

"We  assert,  that  all  men  universally  are  not  elected  to 
salvation;  so  neither  are  all  men  universally  condemned  to 
condemnation.  .  .  .  The  Deity,  from  all  eternity,  and, 
consequently,  at  the  very  time  he  gives  life  and  being  to  a 
reprobate,  certainly  foreknew,  and  knows  in  consequence 
of  his  own  decree,  that  such  a  one  would  fall  short  of 
salvation.  Now,  if  God  foreknew  this,  he  must  have  pre- 
determined it;  because  his  own  will  is  the  foundation  of 
his  decrees,  and  his  decrees  are  the  foundation  of  his 
prescience;  he,  therefore,  foreknows  futurities,  because,  by 
his  predestination,  he  hath  rendered  these  futurition  certain 
and  inevitable."     (lb,,  p.  88.) 

"All  things  whatever  arise  from,  and  depend  upon  the 
Divine    appointment,    whereby    it    was    preordainod    who 


74  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [ciIAP.  II  f. 

should  receive  the  word  of  hfe,  and  who  should  disbe- 
lieve it — who  should  be  dehvered  from  their  sins,  and 
who  should  be  hardened  in  them."     (lb.,  p.  89.) 

"We  assert,  that  the  number  of  the  elect,  and  also  of 
the  reprobate,  is  so  fixed  and  determinate,  that  neither 
can  be  augmented  or  diminished."     (lb.) 

"As  the  future  faith  and  good  works  of  the  elect  were 
not  the  cause  of  their  being  chosen,  so  neither  were  the 
future  sins  of  the  reprobate  the  cause  of  their  being 
passed  by;  but  the  choice  of  the  former,  and  the  de- 
cretive omission  of  the  latter,  were  owing,  merely  and 
entirely,  to  the  sovereign  and  determining  pleasure  of 
God."     (lb.,  p.  112.) 

"  Notwithstanding  God  did,  from  all  eternity,  irreversibly 
choose  out  and  fix  upon  some  to  be  partakers  of  salvation 
by  Christ,  and  rejected  the  rest,  acting  in  both  according  to 
the  good  pleasure  of  his  own  sovereign  will,  yet  he  did  not 
herein  act  an  unjust,  tyrannical,  or  cruel  part ;  nor  yet  show 
himself  a  respecter  of  persons."     (lb.,  p.  119.) 

"  Now  he  [Paul]  beginneth  to  ascend  higher,  namely, 
to  show  the  reason  of  this  diversity,  which  he  teacheth  doth 
not  consist  in  any  thing  else  than  the  election  of  God ;  he 
doth  plainly  refer  the  whole  cause  to  the  election  of  God. 
and  the  same  free,  and  such  as  doth  not  depend  upon  men ; 
that,  in  the  salvation  of  the  godly,  nothing  might  be  sought 
for  above  the  goodness  of  God,  and  in  the  destruction, 
nothing  above  his  just  severity.  The  Lord,  in  this  his  free 
election,  is  at  liberty  and  free  from  that  necessity,  that  he 
should  indifferently  impart  the  grace  unto  all,  but,  rather, 
whom  he  will  he  passeth  over,  and  whom  he  will  he 
chooseth."     (Calvin,  Com.,  Rom.  ix,  11.) 

"  Although  the  corruption  of  nature,  which  is  dispersed 
over  all  mankind,  before  it  come  into  action,  is  available- 
enough  unto  condemnation,  whereby  followeth  that  Esau 
was  worthily  rejected,  because  naturally  he  was  the  son  of 


CHAP,  iri.J  ELECTION  AND   REPROBATION.  75 

wrath  ;  yet,  lest  any  doubt  should  remain,  as  though, 
through  respect  of  any  fault  or  sin,  his  condition  loas  the 
luorse,  it  was  necessary  as  ivell  sins  as  virtues  should  he 
excluded.  Surely,  true  it  is,  that  the  next  cause  of  reproba- 
tion is,  for  that  we  are  all  accursed  in  Adam,  yet,  to  the  end 
we  might  learn  to  rest  in  the  bare,  simple  will  of  God,  Paul 
did  lead  us  aside  from  the  consideration  thereof,  for  so  Jong 
until  he  had  established  this  doctrine,  namely,  that  God 
hath  a  sufficient,  just  cause  of  election  and  reprobation  in 
his  own  will  or  pleasured     (lb.) 

"  God  hath  elected  some,  and  rejected  other  some,  and 
the  cause  is  nowhere  else  to  be  sought  for  than  in  his 
purpose.  For  if  the  difference  were  grounded  on  the  re- 
spect of  works,  in  vain  had  Paul  moved  the  question  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  whereof  there  could  be  no  suspicion, 
if  he  handled  every  one  according  to  his  desert.  .  .  . 
Before  men  are  born,  every  one  hath  his  lot  appointed,  by 
the  secret  counsel  of  God."     (lb.,  chap,  ix,  v.  14.) 

"  There  are  vessels  prepared  for  destruction ;  that  is,  be- 
queathed and  destinated  to  destruction:  there  are  also 
vessels  of  wrath ;  that  is,  made  and  formed  to  this  end,  that 
they  might  be  testimonies  of  the  vengeance  and  wrath  of 
God."     (lb.,  chap,  ix,  v.  22.) 

"  There  is  no  doubt  but  the  preparation  of  them  both 
[elect  and  reprobate]  doth  depend  on  the  secret  counsel  of 
God ;  otherwise,  Paul  had  said  the  reprobates  give  or  cast 
themselves  into  destruction ;  but  now  he  giveth  to  wit,  that 
before  they  are  born  they  are  already  addicted  to  their  lot." 
(lb.,  chap,  ix,  v.  23.) 

"  God,  from  all  eternity,  decreed  to  leave  some  of  Adam's 
fallen  race  in  their  sins,  and  to  exclude  them  from  the 
participation  of  Christ  and  his  benefits."  (Toplady  on  Pre- 
destination, p.  105.) 

"Some  men  were,  from  all  eternity,  not  only  negativelv 
excepted  from  a  participation  of  Clirist  and  salvation,  but 


76  ELECTION"  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

posithely  ordained  to  continue  in  their  natural  blindness 
and  hardness  of  heart.'      (lb.,  p.  106.) 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  with  respecc  to 
election  and  reprobation  of  men,  as  held  by  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  It  would  be  easy  greatly  to  increase 
quotations  from  their  authorities  upon  this  point;  but  the 
foregoing  are  sufficient.  And  from  these,  together  with 
the  former  quotations,  we  deduce  the  following,  as  the  sum 
of  their  faith : 

1.  God  decreed,  from  eternity,  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  the 
ruin  or  fall  of  his  posterity  in  him. 

2.  That,  regarding  man  as  fallen,  he  elected  some  men, 
whose  names  and  number  were  designated,  unto  ever- 
Vsting  life. 

3.  That  those  thus  predestinated,  were  so  predestinated, 
unchangeably  and  unconditionally,  without  any  reference 
whatever  to  their  works  or  character 

4.  That  for  these,  and  these  only,  he  provided  a  Savior, 
and  all  the  means  necessary  to  procure  their  salvation, 
without  aiiy  conditions  on  their  part. 

5.  That  the  persons  thus  unchangeably  designed,  cannot 
possibly  perish,  do  what  they  may,  but  will  be  irresistibly 
drawn  to  Christ,  and  to  justification,  adoption,  and  sanc- 
tification. 

6.  With  Aspect  to  the  rest,  whose  names  and  number 
are  also  definitely  fixed,  that  he  passed  them  by  in  their 
sins,  and  predestinated  them  unto  destruction. 

7.  That  they  were  thus  passed  and  predestinated  from 
eternity,  and  so  were  ordained  to  destruction  before  they 
were  born,  of  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  and  to  the  glory 
of  his  sovereign  justice. 

8.  That  for  these  he  never  did  provide  a  Savior,  and  that 
consequently  they  could  not  be  saved,  do  what  they  might. 

9.  That  those  reprobated  in  no  respect  differed  from 
those  elected,  and  the  one  class  were  elected,  and  the  other 


611AP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  KEPilOBATION,  ^^ 

class  reprobated,  of  the  mere  sovereign  pleasure  of  God. 
without  any  respect  to  any  difference  in  them  whatever. 

To  sum  it  all  up  in  a  few  words,  we  understand  the 
above  to  teach,  that  a  certain,  definite  number  of  the 
human  race  are  elected,  unconditionally  and  unalterably, 
without  reference  to  any  thing  in  them,  or  to  be  performed 
by  them,  and  of  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  God,  unto  ever- 
lasting life,  so  that  they  cannot  perish ;  that  the  rest  are  so 
predestinated  to  eternal  damnation,  that  they  cannot  be 
«aved,  no  Savior  ever  having  been  provided  for  them. 

To  the  doctrine  thus  stated  I  object,  generally,  all  that 
has  been  already  urged  against  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  and, 
particularly,  much  more  which  I  shall  now  immediatelv 
proceed  to  state. 

1.  I  object  to  the  system,  that  it  makes  God  the  author 
of  man's  fall  from  holiness  into  sin.  This  is  a  point  I 
desire  all  my  readers  to  give  particular  attention  to,  as  it 
has  important  bearings  on  subsequent  reasonings.  The 
argument  upon  which  this  deduction  is  founded  is  very 
brief,  and  exceedingly  pJain.     It  is  this : 

"  God,  from  all  eternity,  did,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy 
counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass."     (Confession  of  Faith.) 

But  man's  fall  came  to  pass;  therefore,  God,  from  all 
eternity,  did  ordain  man's  fall. 

"  The  decree  of  God  is  the  necessity  of  things."    (Calvin  , 

But  man's  fall  is  something;  therefore,  God's  decree  is 
the  necessity,  or  necessitating  cause,  of  man's  fall.  But  I 
need  hardly  be  at  the  pains  of  arguing  out  a  conclusion  so 
palpable  that  a  child  could  not  fail  to  perceive  it,  and, 
withal,  a  conclusion  admitted  by  the  great  projector  of  the 
system  I  antagonize. 

"  I  confess,  indeed,"  says  Mr.  Calvin,  "  that  all  the 
descendants  of  Adam  fell  by  the  Divine  will  into  that 
raif.erable  condition  in  which  they  are  now  involved;  and 


78  ELECTION  AND  REFKOBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

aHIs  is  what  I  asserted  from  the  beginning,  that  we  must 
always  return,  at  last,  to  the  sovereign  determination  of 
{.rod's  will,  the  cause  of  which  is  liidden  in  himself." 
(Institutes.) 

Having  thus  delivered  himself,  and  anticipating  objections 
to  his  candid  statement  from  his  opponents,  he  thus  enters 
his  defense  and  explanations : 

"  For  we  will  answer  them  thus,  in  the  language  of 
Paul:  *  0  man,  who  art  thou,  that  repliest  against  God?'  " 

Certainly  a  most  lucid  and  satisfactory  mode  of  escaping 
difficulties ! 

Let  it  not  be  pretended  that  the  fall,  though  ordained, 
was  ordained  as  foreseen — decreed  because  it  was  perceived 
as  an  event  that  would  take  place — for  this  would  oppose 
the  system  to  itself,  which  teaches  that  things  are  not  de- 
creed because  foreknown,  but  foreknown  because  decreed, 
also,  it  would  oppose  the  system  where  it  teaches  that  the 
decree  is  itself  the  cause  of  all  things — the  cause  without 
which  they  could  not  be. 

Shall  I  be  told  that,  though  Adam  fell,  it  was  freely — 
by  voluntarily  eating  the  inhibited  fruit — in  the  language  of 
the  Confession  itself,  that,  "  Our  first  parents  being  seduced 
by  the  subtilty  and  temptation  of  Satan,  sinned  in  eating 
the  forbidden  fruit.  This  their  sin  God  was  pleased,  ac- 
cording to  his  wise  and  holy  c©unsel,  to  permit,  having 
purposed  to  order  it  to  his  own  glory." 

All  this  seems  plausible  enough ;  but  the  slightest  scrutiny 
detects  a  meaning  here  not  discoverable  upon  the  surface. 
It  would  seem  to  represent  that  man's  fall  was  his  own  free 
and  unnecessitated  act.  But  that  this  is  not  the  meaning, 
will  appear  in  a  variety  of  ways.  If  you  ask,  Could  he 
have  done  otherwise  than  as  he  did?  they  must  answer 
you,  No — God  had  decreed  it  thus.  He  could  no  more 
avoid  taking  the  forbidden  fruit  than  he  could  resist  the 
iecree  of   the  Almighty — fall  he  must,  for  Omnipotence 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  *19 

arged  him  on  to  the  catastrophe.  If  you  ask  thcrt,  what, 
then,  they  mean  by  man's  falling  freely,  they  -will  answer  in 
the  language  of  the  Confession  again : 

"  Man,  in  his  state  of  innocency,  had  freedom  and  power 
tc  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  good  and  well-pleasing  to 
God,  but  yet  mutably,  so  that  he  might  fall  from  it." 

This  agaiL  is  plausible  enough,  and  would  seem  to  teach 
that  our  first  parents  h.'  J  power  to  stand  or  fall ;  but  a  more 
narix)w  and  careful  examination  shows  that  this  is  not  their 
meaning ;  for  they  admit  that  they  could  not  help  but  fall, 
or  else  they  believe  that  they  had  power  to  overcome  the 
decree  of  God — they  may  select  their  own  alternative.  All 
they  mean,  when  they  speak  of  freedom  before  or  since  the 
fall,  is  simply  the  power  man  has  to  do  as  he  pleases — to 
follow  his  choice.  But  now  observe,  they  insist  that,  when 
man  chooses  one  thing,  he  has  no  power  to  choose  its  oppo- 
site ;  for  his  particular  choice  was  fi^xed  by  decree.  Adam, 
when  he  chose  to  take  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  could  not 
have  chosen  to  decline  taking  it  any  more  than  he  could 
overcome  a  decree  of  God  which  fixed  his  choice  as  it  was. 
He  was  free,  I  am  told,  because  he  did  as  he  pleased.  I 
answer,  he  had  no  power  to  please  otherwise — therein  is 
his  want  of  freedom.  His  choice,  according  to  the  S3^stem, 
was  forced  upon  him,  by  placing  him  in  circumstances 
where  another  choice  was  impossible.  He  fell  himself,  I 
am  told,  by  his  own  act,  dictated  by  his  own  choice.  I 
answer,  the  act  was  decreed  from  eternity ;  and  the  choice 
which  dictated  the  act  w^  also  decreed  from  eternity;  and 
iie  circumstances  which  made  the  choice  necessary  were 
also  decreed  from  eternity ;  and  the  man  was  created  and 
placed  in  the  circumstances,  that  the  choice  and  act,  and 
consequent  fall,  should  necessarily  take  place.  Thus,  nel^ 
ther  the  act,  nor  the  choice,  nor  the  fall,  were  free,  but  all 
necessitated  by  unavoidable  fate,  or  decree.  God's  decree 
was  the  sole,  original  cause  of  man's  fall.     I  may  have 


80  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [i^HAP.  III. 

occasion  to  saj  more  upon  this  point  to  show  other  revolting 
aspects  of  it ;  but  for  the  present  T  pass  it  to  the  presenta- 
tion of  other  consequences  and  involvements  of  the  system. 

2.  I  object  to  the  system,  in  the  second  place,  that  it 
teaches  that,  when  man  was  thus  involved  in  the  sin  and 
miseries  of  the  fall,  by  God's  own  agency,  he  elected  a  part 
of  the  race,  whose  names  and  number  were  definitely  fixed, 
unto  everlasting  life,  without  any  respect  whatever  either  to 
their  character  or  deeds,  and  reprobated  or  predestinated 
the  residue,  whose  names  and  number  were  also  definitely 
fixed  from  eternity,  unto  eternal  damnation,  and  this,  also, 
without  reference  to  their  character  or  deeds.  The  one 
part  were  decreed  to  be  saved  not  for  any  thing  in  them — 
the  other  part  were  preappointed  to  damnation,  not  as 
being  Avicked.  But  in  both  cases  eternal  destiny  was  fixed, 
without  respect  to  any  thing  in  the  creature.  Do  not,  I 
pray  you.  Dr.  Rice,  turn  away  from  this  appalling  propo- 
sition. Do  not  say,  in  your  haste,  it  is  slanderous.  Hear 
my  reasons  for  attributing  it  to  your  system. 

The  argument  upon  which  I  base  this  statement  is  as 
follows : 

"Although  God  knows  whatever  may  or  can  come  to 
pass  upon  all  supposed  conditions,  yet  hath  he  not  decreed 
any  thing  because  he  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which 
would  come  to  pass  upon  such  supposed  conditions."  (Con- 
fession of  Faith.) 

This  clause,  as  I  understand  it,  teaches  that  God's  decree, 
that  any  event  shall  come  to  pass,  was  entirely  without 
respect  to  foreknoAvledge  that  such  would  be  the  case,  and, 
also,  without  respect  to  conditions  as  a  cause  moving  to  the 
decree.  If  I  am  correct  in  this,  and  I  think  I  am,  then, 
when  God  decreed  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  it  was  entirely 
without  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works  in  them — this  yon 
admit,  and  your  Confession  expressly  asserts :  and  so,  when 
he  willed  the  damnation  of  the  rest,  it  was,  also,  without 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  81 

foresight  or  consideration  of  sin  as  a  cause  thereto — this 
you  deny,  and  no  doubt  you  will  esteem  it  a  misrepresenta- 
tion of  your  system.     But,  if  I  am  mistaken  here,  all  I  ask 
IS  that  you  will  point  out  the  mistake  in  my  reasonings.     A 
disclaimer  will  do  no  good,  unless  you  can  show  that  it  does 
not  result  from  your  system.     First,  you  tell  me  that  God, 
from  eternity,  unconditionally  decreed  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass;  but  the  damnation  of  the  reprobate  comes  to  pass; 
therefore,  the  damnation  of  the  reprobate  was   uncondi- 
tionally decreed.     But  if  it  was  unconditionally  decreed, 
then  it  could  not  have  been  decreed  because  of  sin,   for  , 
that  would  make  sin  the  condition ;  and  so  your  doctrine  / 
Tvould  be  found  at  fault,  when  it  asserts  that  the   decrees  •; 
are  unconditional. 

But  it  is  a  necessary  conclusion,  that  the  decree  of  repro- 
bation is  without  respect  to  sin  for  another  reason.  To 
suppose  it  to  be  upon  the  foresight  of  sin  is  to  abandon 
your  system,  which  teaches  that  the  decrees  of  God  do  not 
proceed  from  foreknowledge,  but  foreknowledge  proceeds 
from  decree ;  for,  if  the  reprobates  are  decreed  to  reproba- 
tion, because  of  foreseen  sin,  then  is  foreknowledge  the 
ground  of  decree.  But,  not  to  take  up  the  time  of  our 
readers  in  reasonings  here,  it  may  be  shown  by  numerous 
references  to  Calvin  himself  that  this  was  his  doctrine — 
that  neither  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  nor  damnation  of  the 
reprobate,  were  ascribable  to  any  thing  in  the  creature,  but 
equally  and  both  to  the  mere  will  and  pleasure  of  God — 
the  one  part  elected  to  life,  and  the  other  to  death,  simply 
because  God  willed  it.  He  says,  and  I  give  one  quotation 
as  a  specimen : 

"  For  this  he  goeth  about  to  bring  to  pass  among  us,  that 
concerning  the  diversity  that  is  between  the  elect  and  repro- 
bate, our  minds  might  be  content  with  this,  namely,  that  it 
hath  so  pleased  God  to  illuminate  some  unto  salvation,  and 
blind  other  some  unto  death,  and  not  seek  any  cause  above 


82  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [CHAP.  111. 

his  wi\.;  for  all  external  things  which  make  to  the  exceca- 
lion  of  the  reprobate  are  the  instruments  of  his  wrath ;  and 
Satan  himself,  which  inwardly  worketh  effectually,  is  so  far 
forth  his  minister  that  he  worketh  not  but  at  his  com- 
mandment ! 

"Therefore,  that  frivolous  evasion  or  refuge,  which  the 
schoolmen  have  of  foreknowledge,  doth  fall  down ;  for  Paul 
doth  not  say,  that  the  ruin  of  the  wicked  is  foreseen  of  the 
Lord,  but  is  ordained  by  his  counsel  and  will :  as  Solomo» 
also  teacheth,  that  the  destruction  of  the  wicked  was  noi 
only  foreknown,  but  that  the  wicked  ones  themselves  were 
purposely  created  that  they  might  perish ! 

"  God  hath  elected  some,  and  rejected  other  some,  and  tlie 
cause  is  nowhere  else  to  he  sought  for  than  in  his  purpose; 
for  if  the  difference  were  grounded  upon  the  respect  of 
works,  in  vain  had  Paul  moved  the  question  of  the  un- 
righteousness of  God,  whereof  there  could  be  no  suspicion, 
if  he  handled  every  one  according  to  his  desert." 

It  is  manifest  that  Calvin  finds  the  cause  of  reprobation, 
as  well  as  election,  in  the  will  of  God  alone,  irrespective  of 
Ts^r^rks.  The  decree  of  election  involves  the  decree  of 
reprobation.  This  is  clearly  and  repeatedly  admitted  by 
your  own  authors,  and  by  your  Confession  itself. 

"  By  the  decree  of  God  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting 
life,  and  otiiers  foreordained  to  everlasting  death.  These 
angels  and  men  thus  predestinated  and  foreordained,  are 
particularly  and  unchangeably  designated ;  and  their  num- 
ber is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  canijot  be  either  in- 
creased or  diminished."     (Confession  of  Faith.) 

I  need  not  reinsert  the  quotations,  full  upon  this  point, 
given  heretofore — it  is  admitted,  and,  if  not,  it  is  unavoidably 
involved.  There  can  be  no  election  of  a  part,  without  an 
implied  and  actual  rejection  of  the  other  part,  not  elected. 
To   present   the   case   in   the   most   favorable   aspect   for 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  82 

Calvinism,  it  stands  thus :  the  human  race  appear  before  God 
as  a  race  of  miserable  sinners,  all  under  sentence  of  con- 
demnation. God  so  beholding  them,  selects  a  portion,  say, 
less  than  one-half,  without  any  reference  to  character,  or 
any  thing  else  in  them — for  they  are  all  precisely  alike: 
these  he  determines  to  save,  or  elects  them,  unconditionally, 
unto  life — sets  them  apart  for  himself.  The  others  he  passes 
by,  and  makes  no  provision  for  them  whatever,  but  leaves 
them,  by  his  sovereign  disposal,  to  eternal  damnation.  Now 
this  election  of  a  part  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a 
rejection  of  the  othei  part.  I  state  it  in  a  manner  certaini\ 
the  least  objectionable  to  a  Calvinist.  And  now,  I  object 
to  it,  even  in  this  favorable  aspect,  as  involving  the  divine 
Being  in  the  grossest  injustice  and  criminal  partiality. 

My  reasons  for  this  charge  shall  be  given,  in  a  moment. 
In  the  meantime,  I  hear  you  say.  Had  not  God  a  right 
to  extend  mercy  to  a  part,  without  bringing  him  under  ob- 
ligation to  extend  it  to  all  ?  he  might  in  justice  have  passed 
all  by:  he  did  those  no  harm,  therefore,  whom  he  passed 
by,  because  they  deserved  it ;  and  that  he  saved  any  was  a 
mere  act  of  grace.  I  am  familiar  with  your  eloquent 
declamation  on  this  point ;  but  it  falls  powerless  upon  my 
mind  for  this  reason.  How  came  these  miserable  creatures 
in  their  condition  of  sin  and  wretchedness?  You  must 
answer  me.  They  were  put  there  by  the  decree  of  God. 
First,  he  put  them  all  in  the  consequences  of  the  fall,  that 
he  might  have  an  occasion  to  display  his  grace,  in  saving 
some,  and  to  glorify  his  justice  in  damning  others!  He 
made  them  sinners,  that  he  might  have  a  pretense  to  tor- 
ment them  for  ever,  to  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  justice 
If  you  can  reconcile  this  to  justice,  I  should  be  happy  it 
have  the  benefit  of  your  assistance  here. 

Upon  this  point,  Dr.  Fisk  says,  **The  doctrine  of  uncon- 
ditional election  of  a  part,  necessarily  implies  the  uncondi- 
tional reprobation  of  the  rest.     I  know  some,  who  hold  to 


84  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

the  former,  seem  to  deny  the  latter ;  for  they  represent  God 
as  reprobating  sinners  in  view  of  their  sins.  When  all  were 
sinners,  they  say,  God  passed  by  some,  and  elected  others. 
Hence,  they  say,  the  decree  of  damnation  against  the 
reprobate  is  just,  because  it  is  against  sinners.  But  this 
explanation  is  virtually  giving  up  the  system,  inasmuch  as 
it  gives  up  all  the  principal  arguments  by  which  it  is  sup- 
ported. In  the  first  place,  it  makes  predestination  dependent 
on  foreknowledge ;  for  God  first  foresees  that  they  will  be 
sinners,  and  then  predestinates  them  to  punishment.  Here 
is  one  case,  then,  in  which  the  argument  for  Calvinian  pre- 
destination is  destroyed  by  its  own  supporters.  But,  again, 
if  God  must  fix,  by  his  decree,  all  parts  of  his  plan,  in  order 
to  prevent  disappointment,  then  he  must  fix  the  destiny  of 
the  reprobates,  and  the  means  that  lead  to  it.  But  if  he 
did  not  do  this,  then  the  Calvinistic  argument  in  favor  of 
predestination,  drawn  from  the  Divine  plan,  falls  to  the 
ground.  Once  more :  this  explanation  of  the  decree  of 
reprobation  destroys  the  Scripture  arguments,  which  the 
Calvinists  urofe  in  favor  of  unconditional  election.  The 
passages,  for  instance,  in  Romans  ix,  which  are  so  often 
quoted  in  favor  of  Calvinian  election,  are  connected  with 
others  equally  strong,  in  favor  of  unconditional  reprobation. 
Now,  if  these  relate  to  personal  election  to  eternal  life,  they 
relate  also  to  personal  reprobation  to  eternal  death.  But 
if  there  is  any  explanation,  by  which  these  are  shown  not 
to  prove  unconditional  reprobation  to  eternal  death,  the 
same  principle  of  interpretation  will  and  must  show  that 
they  do  not  prove  Calvinistic  election. 

But  I  have  not  done  with  this  objection  yet.  Whoever 
maintains  that  "  God  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass,"  must,  also,  hold  to  unconditional  reprobation.  Does 
it  come  to  pass  that  some  are  lost  ?  Then,  this  was  ordained. 
Was  sin  necessary  as  a  pretense  to  damn  them  ?  Then,  this 
was  ordained.     From  these  and  other  views  of  the  subject, 


(IIIAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  85 

Calvin  was  led  to  say,  that  "election  could  not  stand  witli- 
out  reprobation;"  and  that  it  was  "quite  silly  and  childish" 
to  attempt  to  separate  them.  All,  therefore,  who  hold  to 
the  unconditional  election  of  a  part  of  mankind  to  eternal 
life,  must,  to  be  consistent  with  tliemselves,  take  into  their 
creed  the  "horrible  decree  of  reprobation."  They  must 
believe  that  in  the  ages  of  eternity,  God  determined  to 
create  men  and  angels  for  the  express  purpose  to  damn 
them  eternally ! — that  he  determined  to  introduce  sin,  and 
harden  them  in  it,  that  they  might  be  fit  subjects  of  his 
wrath ! — that,  for  doing  as  they  are  impelled  to  do  by  the 
irresistible  decree  of  Jehovah,  they  must  lie  down  for  ever 
imder  the  scalding  vials  of  his  vengeance  in  the  pit  of  hell ! 
To  state  this  doctrine  in  its  true  character  is  enough  to  chill 
one's  blood;  and  we  are  drawn,  by  all  that  is  rational 
within  us,  to  turn  away  from  such  a  God  with  horror,  as 
from  the  presence  of  an  almighty  Tyrant.  And  yet,  I 
charge  upon  Dr.  Rice,  and  all  consistent"  Calvinists,  this 
appalling  dogma. 

3.  I  object  to  the  decree  of  election  and  reprobation,  still 
further,  that  it  at  the  same  time  renders  God  a  partial 
being,  and  destroys  entirely  the  foundation  for  the  doctrine 
of  grace.  If  it  be  true  there  is  no  grace  in  the  salvation- 
of  the  elect,  there  is  great  cruelty  in  the  damnation  of  the 
reprobate,  and  God  is  a  most  partial  being ;  and  in  all  these 
respects  the  system  is  opposed  to  the  Scriptures.  "  To  the 
reprobates  there  is  certainly  no  grace  or  mercy  extended. 
Their  very  existence,  connected  as  it  necessarily  is  with 
eternal  damnation,  is  an  infinite  curse.  The  temporal  bless- 
ings which  they  enjoy,  the  insincere  oflfers  which  are  held 
out  to  them,  and  the  Gospel  privileges  with  which  they  are 
mocked,  if  they  can  be  termed  grace  at  all,  must  be  called 
damning  grace ;  for  all  this  is  only  fattenmg  them  for  the 
slaughter,  and  fitting  them  to  suffer,  to  a  more  aggravated 
extent,  the  unavoidable  pains  and  torments  that  await  them 


86  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

Hence,  Calvin's  sentiment,  'that  God  calls  the  reprobate 
that  they  may  be  more  deaf — kindles  a  light  that  thev 
may  be  more  blind — brings  his  doctrine  to  them  that  they 
may  be  more  ignorant — and  applies  the  remedy  to  them 
that  they  may  not  be  healed,'  is  an  honest  avowal  of  the 
legitimate  principles  of  the  system.  Surely  no  one  will 
pretend  that  according  to  this  system  there  is  any  grace 
in  the  reprobate.  And  perhaps  a  moment's  attention  will 
show  that  there  is  little  or  none  for  the  elect.  It  is  said 
that  God,  out  of  his  mere  sovereignty,  without  any  thing 
in  the  creature  to  move  him  thereto,  elects  sinners  to  ever- 
lasting life.  But  if  there  is  nothing  in  the  creature  to 
move  him  thereto,  how  can  it  be  called  mercy  or  compas- 
sion? He  did  not  determine  to  elect  them  because  they 
were  miserable,  but  simply  because  he  pleased  to  elect 
them.  If  misery  had  been  the  exciting  cause,  then,  as  all 
were  equally  miserable,  he  would  have  elected  them  all. 
Is  such  a  decree  of  election  founded  in  love  to  the  suffer- 
ing object,  or  is  it  not  the  result  of  the  most  absolute  and 
omnipotent  selfishness  conceivable?  It  is  the  exhibition 
of  a  character  that  sports,  most  sovereignly  and  arbitrarily, 
with  his  almighty  power  to  create,  to  damn,  and  to  save." 
Shall  it  be  insisted  that  the  salvation  of  miserable,  per- 
ishing sinners,  is  an  act  of  grace  ?  then  we  continue,  in  the 
language  of  Fisk,  to  ask,  "Who  made  them  miserable, 
perishing  sinners?  Was  not  this  the  effect  of  God's  de- 
cree? And  is  there  much  mercy  displayed  in  placing 
men  under  a  constitution  which  necessarily  and  unavoid- 
ably involves  them  in  sin  and  suffering,  that  God  may 
afterward  have  the  sovereign  honor  of  saving  them? 
Surely  the  tenderest  mercies  of  this  system  are  cruel — 
its  brightest  parts  are  dark — its  boasted  mercy  hardly 
comes  up  to  sheer  justice  even  to  the  elect;  since  they 
only  receive  back  what  God  had  deprived  them  of;  and 
for  the  want  of  wliich  they  had  suffered  perhaps  for  years. 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  87 

And  as  to  the  reprobates,  the  Gospel  is  unavoidably  a 
source  of  death  unto  death.  To  them  Christ  came,  that 
they  might  have  death,  and  have  it  more  abundantly,  to 
the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice." 

In  the  language  of  Mr.  Wesley,  "How  is  God  good  or 
loving,  to  a  reprobate,  or  one  that  is  not  elect?  You 
cannot  say  he  is  an  object  of  the  love  or  goodness  of  God, 
with  regard  to  his  eternal  state,  whom  he  created,  says  Mr. 
Calvin,  plainly  and  fairly,  ''  to  live  a  reproach  and  die  ever- 
lastingly.' Surely  no  one  can  dream  that  the  goodness  of 
God  is  at  all  concerned  with  this  man's  eternal  state,  how- 
ever God  is  good  to  him  in  this  world.  What !  when,  by 
the  reason  of  God's  unchangeable  decree,  it  had  been  good 
for  this  man  never  to  have  been  born  ?  when  his  very  birth 
was  a  curse,  not  a  blessing?  'Well,  but  he  now  enjoys 
many  of  the  gifts  of  God,  both  gifts  of  nature  and  of 
providence.  He  has  food,  and  raiment,  and  comforts  of 
various  kinds ;  and  are  not  all  these  great  blessings  ?'  No, 
not  to  him.  At  the  price  which  he  is  to  pay  for  them, 
every  one  of  these  is  also  a  curse.  Every  one  of  these 
comforts  is,  by  an  eternal  decree,  to  cost  him  a  thousand 
pangs  in  hell.  For  every  moment's  pleasure  which  he 
now  enjoys,  he  is  to  suffer  the  torments  of  more  than  a 
thousand  years;  for  the  smoke  of  that  pit  which  is  pre- 
paring for  him,  ascendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever.  God 
knew  this  would  be  the  fruit  of  whatever  he  should  enjoy, 
before  the  vapor  of  life  fled  away.  He  designed  it  should. 
It  was  his  very  purpose  in  giving  him  those  enjoyments; 
so  that;  by  all  these,  he  is  in  truth  and  reality  only  fatten- 
ing the  ox  for  the  slaughter.  *Nay,  but  God  gives  him 
grace,  too.'  Yes,  but  what  kind  of  grace?  Saving  grace, 
you  own,  he  has  not;  and  the  common  grace  he  has  was 
not  given  with  any  design  to  save  his  soul ;  nor  with  any 
.Vjsign  to  do  him  any  good  at  all,  but  only  to  restrain  him 


88  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [CHAP.  III. 

from  hurting  the  elect:  so  far  from  doing  him  good,  that 
this  grace  also  necessarily  increases  his  damnation, 

"'And  God  knows  this,'  you  say,  'and  designed  it 
should :  it  was  one  great  end  for  which  he  gave  it !'  Then 
I  desire  to  know  how  is  God  good  or  loving  to  this  man, 
either  with  regard  to  time  or  eternity. 

"Let  us  suppose  a  particular  instance:  here  stands  a 
man  who  is  reprobated  from  all  eternity ;  or,  if  you  would 
express  it  more  smoothly,  Avho  is  not  elected — whom  God 
ete?^ally  decreed  to  pass  by.  Thou  hast  nothing,  there- 
fore, to  expect  from  God  after  death,  but  to  be  cast  into 
the  lake  of  fire,  burning  with  brimstone — God  having  con- 
signed thy  unborn  soul  to  hell  by  a  decree  which  cannot 
pass  away.  And  from  the  time  thou  wast  born  under  the 
irrevocable  curse  of  God,  thou  canst  have  no  peace;  for 
there  is  no  peace  to  the  wicked,  such  as  thou  art  doomed 
to  continue,  even  from  thy  mother's  womb.  Accordingly, 
God  giveth  thee  of  this  world's  goods  on  purpose  to  en- 
hance thy  damnation.  He  giveth  thee  more  substance  or 
friends  in  order  hereafter  to  heap  the  more  coals  of  fire  on 
thy  head.  He  filleth  thee  with  good ;  he  maketh  thee  fat 
and  Avell-looking,  to  make  thee  a  more  specious  sacrifice  to 
his  vengeance.  Good-nature,  generosity,  a  good  under- 
standing, various  knowledge,  it  may  be,  or  eloquence,  are 
the  flowers  wherewith  he  adorneth  thee,  thou  poor  victim, 
before  thou  art  brought  to  the  slaughter.  Thou  hast 
grace,  too!  but  what  grace?  Not  saving  grace.  That 
is  not  for  thee,  but  for  the  elect  only.  Thine  may  be 
termed  damning  grace;  since  it  is  not  only  such  in  the 
event,  but  in  the  intention.  Thou  receivedst  it  of  God 
for  that  very  end,  that  thou  mightest  receive  the  greater 
damnation.  It  was  given  not  to  convert  thee,  but  only 
to  convince;  not  to  make  thee  without  sin,  but  without 
excuse!  not  to  destroy,  but  to  arm  the  worm  that  never 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  89 

dieth,  and  blow  up  the  fire  that  shall  never  be  quenched. 
Now,  I  beseech  you,  how  is  God  good  or  loving  to  this 
man?  Is  not  this  such  love  as  makes  your  blood  run 
cold?" 

4.  I  object  to  the  doctrine  further,  that  it  not  only 
teaches  the  unconditional  reprobation  of  a  part  of  man- 
kind, who,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Calvin,  were  created 
for  destruction,  but  it  also  teaches,  in  harmony  with  the 
foregoing,  that  Christ  never  died  for  the  lost — never  in 
any  sense  made  salvation  possible.  This  is  not  only  an 
inference  deducted  from  the  decree  of  election  and  repro- 
bation— though  it  is  unavoidably  inferable  from  that  de- 
cree, because  it  is  manifest,  if  a  man  is  eternally  and 
unconditionally  decreed  to  be  damned,  he  never  had  a 
possibility  of  salvation.  But  our  proposition  is  not  a  mere 
inference — it  is  an  express  statement  of  Calvinists  them- 
selves.    Two  authorities  will  answer  upon  this  point. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  shall  be  my  first  reference — it 
is  very  explicit.  Its  language  is :  "  Neither  are  any  other 
redeemed  by  Christ,  but  the  elect  only.''^ 

"In  this  section  we  are  taught,"  says  Mr.  Shaw,  the 
expositor  of  the  Confession,  in  his  work  revised  and  pub- 
lished by  the  Presbyterian  board  of  publication,  and  re- 
ceived as  a  true  exposition  of  their  doctrines,  "that  Christ 
died  exclusively  for  the  elect,  and  purchased  redemption  for 
them  alone;  in  other  words,  that  Christ  made  atonement 
only  for  the  elect,  and  that  in  no  sense  did  he  die  for  the 
rest  of  the  race.  Our  Confession  first  asserts,  positively, 
that  the  elect  are  redeemed  by  Christ ;  and  then  negatively 
that  none  other  are  redeemed  by  Christ  but  the  elect  only. 
If  this  does  not  affirm  the  doctrine  of  particular  redemp- 
tion, or  of  a  limited  atonement,  we  know  not  what  lan- 
guage could  express  that  doctrine  more  explicitly." 

These  authorities  are  sufficient  for  my  purpose  at  present, 
'.hough  a  large  number  equally  explicit  might  be  adduced, 

8 


90  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

showing  that  it  is  the  common  opinion  of  Calvinists,  and 
certainly  the  only  opinion  at  all  consistent  with  theiir 
system. 

Well,  now,  in  view  of  this  doctrine,  I  alledge  the  follow- 
ing objections : 

(1.)  It  renders  the  conclusion  unavoidable,  that  the  sin- 
ner is  absolutely  damned,  not  only  without  the  possibility 
of  salvation,  but  without  any  fault  of  his  whatever. 

For,  first,  it  was  certain  he  was  involved  in  guilt,  without 
his  consent,  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  thousands  of  years  before 
he  was  born.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  he  was  to 
blame  for  this,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  a  man  is  blame- 
worthy for  an  act  which  occurred  thousands  of  years  before 
he  had  an  existence. 

Well,  as  he  was  involved  in  guilt,  without  his  consent,  so 
no  plan  was  ever  devised  by  which  it  was  possible  for  him 
to  escape  from  his  guilt.  He  is  therefore  shut  up  to  be 
damned  in  hell  torments  for  ever  on  account  of  guilt  which 
he  had  no  part  in  procuring  to  himself,  and  from  which  it 
Avas  never  possible  for  him  to  escape.  Sir,  is  not  this 
dreadful  ? 

(2.)  I  object  to  this  doctrine  further,  because  it  finds  the 
cause  of  the  sinner's  reprobation  and  damnation  in  his  cor- 
ruption of  nature  alone. 

The  doctrine  is,  that  mankind  were  viewed  as  fallen  in 
Adam,  and  all  of  them  under  condemnation,  and  deserving 
of  death ;  whereupon,  God,  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure, 
elected  a  certain  definite  number  to  life,  and  passed  by  the 
other  definite  part,  and  left  them  under  sentence  of  death 
on  account  of  their  sin.  Of  what  sin !  why,  their  sinful 
estate  in  Adam.  This  then  was  the  cause  of  their  repro- 
bation and  damnation — Adam's  sin,  and  not  their  own ! 

It  will  be  no  relief  to  this  to  insist  that  the  reprobates 
are  also  punished  for  their  actual  transgressions ;  for  there 
stands    the    fact,   first,   that   the    sufficient  cause  of   their 


CflAP.  III.J  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  91 

reprobation,  was  their  sinful  state;  and  if  this  was  the 
sufficient  cause,  they  might,  they  would  have  been  damned, 
if  they  had  never  committed  one  single  actual  sin !  They 
were  damned  before  ever  they  committed  a  sinful  act 
themselves!  Nay,  1  go  a  step  further,  and  say  that  the 
actual  sins  of  the  reprobates  forms  no  juster  ground  of 
their  damnation  than  their  natufal  corruption,  even  if  we 
should  admit  that  their  actual  sins  were  taken  into  account 
in  their  reprobation;  for  they  were  brought  into  existence 
with  a  corrupt  nature,  from  which  it  never  was  possible 
for  them  to  free  themselves,  which  they  had  no  consent 
in  bringing  upon  themselves;  and  with  it  their  actual  sins 
were  absolutely  unavoidable,  and  so  could  no  more  consti- 
tute a  just  ground  of  damnation  than  would  their  inherited 
depravity. 

(3.)  And  here  again  let  me  ask,  why  shall  Calvinists 
demur  when  we  charge  them  with  holding  to  infant  dam- 
nation ?  The  fact  is,  they  hold  to  no  other  kind  of  damna- 
tion! Every  reprobate  was  reprobated  for  that  which  he 
possessed  as  soon  as  he  came  into  the  world!  He  was 
damned  in  the  purpose  of  God  for  his  natural  depravity, 
before  he  was  born,  and  his  after  actual  transgressions 
were  only  the  fruits  of  his  reprobation!  I  can  see  no 
difference  between  consigning  an  infant  to  hell,  as  soon 
as  born,  and  actually  sentencing  it  as  soon  as  born  for  its 
then  state,  and  permitting  it  to  live  a  hundred  years  to 
commit  actual  sins,  that  a  pretense  may  be  actually  created 
for  rendering  its  damnation  doubly  deep — only  that  the 
latter  seems  worse  than  the  former ! 

(4.)  I  object  to  the  doctrine  that  God  really  preferred 
the  damnation  of  a  part  to  the  salvation  of  all — he  chose 
it  as  more  agreeable  to  himself,  not  to  meet  the  ends  of 
justice  or  promote  good  government,  but  purely  for  his 
own  gratification,  that  a  part  should  be  lost  to  the  glory 


92  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

of  his  justice,  than  that  all  should  have  an  opportunity 
'  to  be  saved ! 

This  is  apparent  in  the  fact  that  Calvinists  admit  that 
there  was  merit  enough  in  the  death  of  Christ  to  secure 
the  salvation  of  all ;  but  God,  by  a  sovereign  act,  limited 
it  to  a  part.  He  could  have  saved  all  as  well  as  a  part, 
but  he  preferred  not  to  do  it!  It  will  not  do  to  reply, 
he  must  damn  some  to  vindicate  his  justice,  for  it  is  con- 
tended that  the  death  of  Christ  was  ample,  entirely  suffi- 
cient, to  satisfy  the  claims  of  justice  for  the  whole  race: 
but  God,  by  a  sovereign  prerogative,  chose  to  limit  it  to  a 
part.  He  must  therefore  have  preferred  the  damnation  of 
a  part,  the  reprobates,  or  he  would  at  least  have  made  their 
salvation  possible.  Can  Dr.  Rice  assign  any  reason  for  the 
damnation  of  the  reprobate,  but  the  mere  good  pleasure  of 
God  ?  He  could  have  saved  them,  but  he  chose  not  to  do 
so.  And  why  did  he  choose  not  to  do  so  ?  Is  it  answered, 
on  account  of  their  sins?  But  why  on  account  of  their 
sins  ?  Could  he  not  have  saved  all,  as  well  as  a  part,  when 
there  was  a  sufficient  ransom,  and  the  application  of  it  de- 
pended updn  his  mere  sovereign  will  ?  That  the  application 
was  not  made,  therefore,  can  be  ascribed  to  nothing  else  but 
the  good  pleasure  of  God,  or  he  damns  a  large  part  of 
mankind  simply  because  he  had  rather  damn  them  than 
save  them  !     Is  not  this  blasphemous  ? 

5.  To  the  Calvinian  doctrine  of  eternal  reprobation  I 
fui'ther  object,  as  being  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptures: 

(1.)  To  all  those  passages  which  teach  that  "Christ  died 
for  all  men'''  for  "the  whole  world,"  &c.  This  class  of 
Scripture  texts  is  quite  numerous,  and  very  unequivocal. 

"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  ^he  sin 

\  of  the  world."     "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his 

only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should 

not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."     "  This  is  indeed  the 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  98 

Christ,  the  Savior  of  the  world."  "  For  the  love  of  Christ 
constraineth  us,  because  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for 
all,  then  were  all  dead."  "  That  he,  by  the  grace  of  God,  i 
should  taste  death  for  every  man."  "  And  he  is  the  propi- ' 
tiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world."  "Who  is  the  Savior  of  all  men, 
especially  of  those  that  believe."  "Who  gave  himself  a 
ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time." 

We  give  the  above  as.  a  selection  of  texts  asserting  that 
the  death  of  Christ  was  for  all  men,  for  every  man,  for  the 
whole  world.  The  list  might  be  greatly  extended ;  but,  for 
the  present,  these  are  sufficient. 

(2.)  The  same  fact  is  clearly  taught  in  all  those  passages 
where  a  parallel  is  run  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the 
fall  of  our  first  parents.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  "But  not  as  the  offense, 
so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For  if,  through  the  offense  of  one, 
many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift 
by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded 
unto  many.  Therefore,  as  by  the  oftense  of  one  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  unto  condemnation,  even  so  by  the 
righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto 
justification  of  life." 

(3.)  The  idea  that  Christ  died  for  the  elect  only  is  con- 
trary to  those  Scriptures,  which  teach  that  some  for  whom 
Christ  died  may  perish.  "And  through  thy  knowledge 
shall  thy  weak  brother  perish,  for  whom  Christ  died." 
**  False  teachers  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  here- 
sies, even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  iind  bring 
upon  themselves  swift  destruction."  "  Of  how  much  sorer 
punishment  suppose  ye  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who 
has  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted 
the  blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an 
unholy  thing,  and  hath  done  despite  unto  the   spirit  of 


94  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

grace."  "  Destroy  not  him,  with  thy  meat,  for  whom 
Christ  died." 

(4.)  A  further  argument  is  deducible  from  those  passages 
which  make  the  offers  of  the  Gospel  to  all  men,  and  require 
all  men  to  repent  and  believe,  condemning  them  to  death 
for  rejecting  the  offer,  and  refusing  to  comply.  "  He  that 
believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life:  and  he  that 
believeth  not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  him."  "  But  these  are  written  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name."  "  He 
that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath 
not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God." 
**  And  said  unto  them.  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
my  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
damned."  "  How  shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great 
salvation  ?" 

(5.)  In  all  those  passages  in  which  men's  failure  to  obtain 
salvation  is  placed  to  the  account  of  their  own  will,  this 
doctrine  of  limited  atonement,  of  election,  and  reprobation, 
is  disallowed.  "  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy 
children  together,  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under 
her  wings,  and  ye  would  not."  "  And  ye  will  not  come  to 
me  that  ye  may  have  life."  "Bringing  upon  themselves 
swift  destruction."  "Whosoever  will,  let  him  take  the 
waters  of  life  freely." 

It  is  useless  to  multiply  quotations,  since  the  New  Testa- 
ment so  constantly  exhorts  men  to  come  to  Christ,  reproves 
them  for  neglect,  and  threatens  them  Avith  the  penal  conse- 
quences of  their  own  folly,  thus  uniformly  placing  the  bar 
of  their  salvation  just  where  Christ  places  it  in  his  parable 
of  the  supper — in  the  perversencss  of  those  who,  havmg 
been  bidden  to  the  feast,  would  not  come. 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  95 

Thus  the  idea  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  all  men  is  con- 
trary to  all  those  Scriptures,  in  which  the  atonement  is 
represented  as  universal — in  which  it  is  contrasted  with  the 
fall — in  which  it  is  represented  as  possible  for  those  for 
whom  Christ  died  to  perish — in  which  all  men  are  required 
to  believe,  and  condemned  for  not  beheving — in  which 
failure  to  obtain  salvation  is  charged  to  the  will  and  folly 
of  the  lost — in  which  invitations  are  made  to  sinners,  warn- 
ings given  to  saints,  as  though  the  former  might  be  saved, 
the  latter  lost — in  which  conditions  are  expressed,  the  voli- 
tion of  the  creature  is  addressed,  and  final  destiny  is  sus- 
pended upon  their  action,  with  a  great  variety  of  classes  of 
Scriptures  needless  to  mention. 

6.  If  Christ  only  died  for  a  part  of  mankind,  and  if  only 
a  definite  number  may  come  to  him  and  be  saved,  I  ask  Dr. 
Rice,  in  the  name  of  all  reason  and  consistency,  with  what 
propriety  can  he  invite  persons,  not  of  the  elect,  to  come  to 
Christ,  to  turn  that  they  may  have  life,  to  seek  the  favor  of 
God?  &c.  Why  does  he  make  such  invitations?  He 
knows  they  cannot  comply ;  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  ; 
that  they  have  no  more  power  to  do  so  than  they  have  to 
make  a  world.  Is  it  not  mockery,  then,  to  ask  them? 
Are  not  all  such  invitations  sheer  trifling  with  interests  the 
most  awful  and  tremendous?  Invite  a  sinner  to  come  to 
Christ  when  he  cannot — when  he  dare  not !  In  the  name 
of  consistency,  how  is  this  to  be  reconciled  with  human 
candor,  to  say  nothing  of  Divine  sincerity  ? 

7.  But  again :  if  Christ  only  died  for  the  elect,  why  are 
reprobates  commanded  to  believe  ?  What  are  they  required 
to  believe  ?  Are  they  required  to  believe  in  Christ  for  sal- 
vation. If  so,  they  are  either  able  to  believe,  or  they  are 
not.  If  not  able,  they  are  required  to  perform  an  absolute 
impossibility.  If  they  are  able,  then  they  may  believe  ;  and 
as  salvation  is  by  faith,  a  reprobate  may  be  saved ;  and  if 
saved,  he  will  be  saved  by  believing  a  lie — that  Christ  was 


96  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

his  Savior,  when  in  fact  he  was  not :  he  will  also  be  saved 
without  a  Sa\dor ;  but  if  he  believes  and  is  not  saved,  he 
will  falsify  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession,  which  teach 
that  whosoever  believeth  shall  be  saved. 

8.  But  again :  why  is  the  unbelief  of  the  reprobate 
made  the  ground  of  his  condemnation — of  his  final  destruc- 
tion ?  He  is  damned  for  not  believing  on  Christ ;  that  is, 
for  not  belie\ing  a  lie.  Had  he  believed  on  Christ,  if  tht 
thing  were  possible,  he  would  have  believed  a  lie ;  but  foi 
not  believing  a  lie,  he  is  damned  for  ever.  Sir,  is  not  this 
dreadful !  Yet  these,  and  many  more  such  consequences, 
are  the  unavoidable  results  of  your  system. 

9.  The  sinner's  damnation  is  ascribed  to  his  rejection  of 
Christ — to  his  resistance  of  proffered  mercy — to  his  willful 
distance  from  God.  But,  according  to  this  system,  he  does 
not  reject  Christ,  for  Christ  never  was  offered  to  him ;  he 
could  not  accept  him ;  he  did  not  refuse  mercy,  for  mercy 
never  was  held  out  to  his  acceptance ;  his  own  will  did  not 
keep  him  in  sin,  for  there  never  was  a  way  of  escape. 

10.  The  Scriptures  ascribe  the  sinner's  ruin  to  his  own 
choice — to  his  own  will ;  but,  according  to  this  system>  his 
will  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it ;  for  either  it  was 
possible  for  him  to  will  to  come  to  Christ  and  be  saved,  or 
it  was  not.  If  it  was  possible  for  him  to  will  to  come  to 
Christ  and  be  saved,  a  reprobate  might  be  saved  by  Christ, 
who  never  died  for  him ;  if  he  could  not  will  to  come  to 
Christ,  and  is  damned  for  not  willing  it,  then  he  is  damned 
for  not  performing  an  impossibility.  His  destruction  is 
not  assignable  to  the  perversity  of  his  own  will,  but  to  tha 
fact  that  no  possible  chance  of  salvation  was  ever  given 
to  him. 

11.  Why  do  Calvinists  demur  and  complain  of  us  when 
we  say,  the  reprobate  must  be  damned,  do  what  he  may  or 
can?  Do  they  not  know  this  is  true?  He  cannot  be 
saved !     It  is  eternally  out  of  the  question,  and  impossible, 


OlIAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  97 

for  a  cause  with  which  he  had  no  consenting  or  persona] 
connection,  any  more  than  Gabriel  had. 

12.  Why  do  Calvinists  complain  when  we  say,  the  elect 
must  bo  saved,  do  what  they  may  or  can?  Do  they  not 
know  that  this  is  so  ?  One  of  the  elect  cannot  be  lost — no 
sin,  in  his  power,  will  ever  peril  his  salvation.  He  cannot, 
though  he  exert  himself  to  that  end,  endanger  his  soul  in 
the  slightest  degree.  And  this  Dr.  Rice  will  be  compelled 
to  admit.  I  say  not,  now,  that  he  will  not  endanger  his 
salvation,  but  I  say  he  cannot.  He  is  now  saved,  and  never 
can  be  lost.  The  poor  reprobate  cannot  be  saved,  do  what 
he  may.  Tell  me  not  that  he  might  if  he  would ;  it  is  sin- 
ning to  pretend  any  thing  of  the  kind.  If  he  willed  ever 
so  much,  he  has  no  Savior!  He  is  damned  without  any 
fault  of  his,  and  when  escape  was  impossible. 

13.  Why  remonstrate  with  the  reprobate  upon  the  folly 
of  his  course,  and  about  destroying  himself?  Does  not 
God  know  that  the  poor  wretch  cannot  help  it  ?  He  help 
it !  he  was  damned  thousands  of  years  before  he  was  born ! 
He  never  had  any  hand  in  it  originally !  And  if  he  has  had 
since,  it  was  only  in  this  way :  He  was  given  an  existence, 
which  he  was  compelled  to  employ  in  sin,  that  a  pretense 
might  be  furnished  infinite  cruelty  for  doubly  damning  him  I 
Why  will  you  die  ?  What  language  to  put  in  the  mouth 
of  God  concerning  the  reprobates ! 

14.  Why  expostulate  with  the  elect  upon  the  necessity 
of  watchfulness,  the  use  of  means,  the  danger  of  coming 
shgrt  of  life,  and  such  like?  There  is  no  danger  to  the 
elect ;  he  can  do  nothing  more  nor  less  than  was  decreed ; 
and  if  he  could  do  ever  so  much,  his  works  have  nothing  to 
do  in  regard  to  his  salvation.  Is  it  pretended,  that  warn- 
ings are  designed  to  stimulate  to  duty  ?  Then,  I  answer,  a 
deception  is  attempted  to  be  played  off  upon  the  elect,  to 
promote  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ! 

15.  I  object  to  the  whole  system,  that  it  destroys  the 

9 


98  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

moral  government  of  God,  and  renders  his  sovereignty  a 
l:)lind,  capricious,  and  tyrannical  sovereignty.  The  idea  of 
moral  government  is  that  of  dealing  with  men  according  to 
their  deeds;  but  this  system  excludes  such  idea  entirely. 
Men  are  elected  unto  life  without  respect  to  their  deeds,  and 
they  are  also  appointed  unto  damnation  without  respect  to 
their  dee^s.  Let  it  not  be  said  that  their  deeds  are  taken 
into  the  account,  in  their  election  and  reprobation ;  for  it  is 
previously  said,  that  these — election  and  reprobation — are 
unconditional  and  without  foresight,  and  so  can  have  no 
respect  whatever  to  character  or  conduct ;  and  so,  according 
to  Calvinism,  there  is  no  such  thini^  as  dealinor  with  men 
according  to  character  or  conduct — no  moral  government. 
But,  even  if  the  system  admitted  conduct  and  character  as 
questions  in  the  Divine  government,  it  would  not  help  the 
case  in  the  slightest  degree ;  because  these,  according  to  the 
system,  are  necessitated,  without  any  agency  of  the  creature 
whatever.  The  character  and  conduct  are  forced  upon  him, 
and  then  he  is  held  to  account  for  them !  All  this  may  be 
denied,  and  no  doubt  will  be ;  but  denials  are  useless,  so 
long  as  the  system  is  liable  to  such  logical  imputation. 
According  to  Calvinism,  there  is  no  moral  government. 
When  some  are  admitted  to  heaven,  and  others  are  con- 
signed to  hell,  the  sole  cause  of  their  different  destinies  is 
the  decree  of  God,  by  which  the  former  were  elected,  and 
the  latter  reprobated;  and  their  respective  vice  or  virtue 
was  the  fruit  of  their  previously  determined  fate,  not  its 
cause.  They  are  rewarded  not  according  to  their  wolks, 
but  according  to  the  decree  of  God. 

16.  The  Calvinian  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation, 
in  the  place  of  making  the  atonement  a  benefit  to  the  re- 
probates, makes  it  an  infinite  curse,  not  in  its  avoidable 
abuse,  but  in  itself  necessarily.  So  that  here  is  a  sovereign 
scheme  of  God,  intended  to  be  a  benefit  to  some  chosen 
persons,  by  being,  in  its  very  nature,  an  infinite  curse  to 


CHAP.  III.  I  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  09 

others.  This  must  appear  in  one  moment.  Let  it  be  re- 
membered, that  the  atonement,  with  respect  to  reprobates, 
does  not  make  their  salvation  possible — they  cannot  be 
saved  by  it.  Let  it  be  further  remembered,  that,  while  it 
does  not  make  it  possible  for  them  to  be  saved,  it  makes 
their  damnation  a  hundred-fold  worse  than  if  it  had  never 
been  made — it  does  them  no  real  good — it  brings  them 
infinite  mischief,  and  this  entirely  without  respect  to  any 
thing  in  them  that  was  voluntary ;  and  this  their  infinitely 
increased  misery  is  upon  a  false  pretense.  They  are  called 
to  return  unto  God — to  repent — to  believe  in  Christ — to  a 
holy  life :  no  one  of  which  calls  could  they  possibly  obey ; 
and  yet,  for  not  obeying,  every  time  they  refuse,  their 
damnation  is  increased.  Is  not  this  awful — friohtful! 
Could  Satanic  cruelty  display  greater  malevolence  than  is 
here  supposed?  Every  mercy,  every  call,  every  seeming 
good,  is  so  arranged  as  necessarily  to  sink  the  poor,  misera- 
ble victim  deeper  into  the  quenchless  flames  of  eternal 
damnation.  Thou  glorious  God  of  the  universe,  whose 
v^ery  nature  is  love,  what  a  representation  of  thy  character ! — 
holding  out  to  thy  hapless,  miserable  creatures,  an  empty 
semblance  of  good,  which  it  is  impossible,  in  the  nature  ol 
things,  for  them  to  attain,  and  then  increasing  their  alread}' 
dreadful  miseries  for  failing  to  comply ;  and  still  repeating 
the  impracticable,  heartless  offer,  every  day,  every  hour, 
that,  by  their  unavoidable  rejection,  they  may  go  on  sinking 
deeper  and  deeper  yet  into  torments,  beyond  the  power  of 
mind  to  conceive,  and  of  eternal  continuance !  Dreadful ! 
dreadful !  dreadful !  Thou  great  Spirit  of  the  heavens,  art 
thou  such  a  monster  as  this ! 

In  the  language  of  Mr.  Wesley,  "  This  is  the  blasphemy 
for  which — however  I  love  the  persons  who  assert  it — 1 
abhor  the  doctrine  of  predestination :  a  doctrine,  upon  the 
supposition  of  which,  if  one  could  possibly  suppose  it  for  a 
moment,  one  might  say  to  our  adversary,  the  devil,  *  Tliou 


100  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [cHAP.  III. 

fool,  why  dost  thou  roar  about  any  longer?  Thy  lying  in 
wait  for  souls  is  as  needless  and  useless  as  our  preaching. 
Hearest  thou  not  that  God  hath  taken  thy  work  out  of  thy 
hands  ?  and  that  he  doth  it  more  effectually  ?  Thou,  with 
all  thy  principalities  and  powers,  canst  only  so  assault  that 
we  may  resist  thee.  But  he  can  irresistibly  destroy  both 
soul  and  body  in  hell !  Thou  canst  only  entice.  But  his 
unchangeable  decree,  to  leave  thousands  of  souls  in  death, 
compels  them  to  continue  in  sin  till  they  drop  into  everlast- 
ing burnings.  Thou  temptest ;  he  forceth  us  to  be  damned, 
for  we  cannot  resist  his  will.  Thou  fool,  why  goest  thou 
about  any  longer,  seeking  whom  thou  mayest  devour? 
Hearest  thou  not  that  God  is  the  devouring  lion — the  de- 
stroyer of  souls — the  murderer  of  men?  Moloch  caused 
only  children  to  pass  through  the  fire;  and  that  fire  whs 
soon  quenched,  or,  the  corruptible  body  being  consumer' , 
its  torments  were  at  an  end.  But  God,  thou  art  told  by  h^  t 
eternal  decree,  fixed  before  they  had  done  good  or  evi 
causes  whom  he  destroys  to  pass  through  the  fires  of  hell— 
the  fire  which  shall  never  be  quenched ;  and  the  body  whici 
is  cast  thereinto,  being  now  incorruptible  and  immortal,  wil 
be  ever  consuming  and  never  consumed,  but  the  smoke  of 
their  torment,  because  it  is  God's  good  pleasure,  ascendetl 
up  for  ever  and  ever.' 

"  0  how  would  the  enemy  of  God  and  man  rejoice  tc 
hear  these  things  were  so !  How  would  he  cry  aloud  and 
spare  not!  How  would  he  lift  up  his  voice  and  say,  *Tg 
your  tents,  0  Israel !'  Flee  from  the  presence  of  this  God, 
or  ye  shall  utterly  perish !  But  whither  will  ye  flee :  into 
heaven?  He  is  there.  Down  to  hell?  He  is  there  also. 
Ye  cannot  flee  from  an  omnipresent,  almighty  tyrant.  And 
whether  ye  flee  or  stay,  I  call  heaven,  his  throne,  and  the 
earth,  his  footstool,  to  witness  against  you,  ye  shall  perish ; 
ye  shall  die  eternally.  Sing,  0  hell,  and  rejoice  yo  that  are 
under  the  earth ;    for  God,   even  the  mighty  God,  hath 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  RLPROBATION.  3  01 

spoken,  and  devoted  to  death  thousands  of  souls,  from  the 
rising  of  the  sun  unto  the  going  down  thereof.  Here,  0 
death,  is  thy  sting  !  They  shall  not,  cannot  escape  ;  for  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it.  Here,  0  grave,  is  thy 
victory !  Nations  yet  unborn,  or  ere  they  had  done  good 
or  evil,  are  doomed  never  to  see  the  light  of  life,  but  thou 
shait  gnaw  upon  them  for  ever  and  ever.  Let  all  those 
morning  stars  sing  together  who  fell  with  Lucifer,  son  of 
the  morning.  Let  all  the  sons  of  hell  shout  for  joy !  For 
the  decree  is  past,  and  who  shall  disannul  it !" 

Do  you  shudder  at  this?  is  your  whole  soul  filled  with 
just  horror  at  the  blasphemous  intimation?  Who,  let  me 
ask,  is  guilty  of  the  enormous  blasphemy?  Who  is  it  that 
thus  charges  God  foolishly,  nay,  wickedly?  Reflect,  ye 
that  hold  to  unconditional  election  and  reprobation!  how 
can  you  escape?  In  the  sight  of  heaven  and  earth,  are 
you  not  guilty  ?  Have  you  not  aspersed  the  glorious  God, 
and  made  wicked  men  and  devils  to  triumph  in  your  blas- 
phemies? In  the  spirit  of  kindness  and  love  we  beseech 
you  to  consider  these  things ;  and  may  God  help  you ! 

17.  The  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation,  if  true, 
renders  the  condition  of  mankind  far  worse  than  that  of 
devils  in  hell;  for  these  were,  sometime,  in  a  capacity  to 
have  stood ;  they  might  have  kept  their  happy  estate,  but 
would  not ;  whereas,  many  millions  of  men,  according  to  this 
doctrine,  are  tormented  for  ever,  without  ever  having  had 
the  opportunity  to  be  happy  !  It  renders  the  fate  of  human 
beings  worse  than  the  beasts  of  the  field,  of  whom  the 
master  requires  no  more  than  they  are  able  to  perform ;  and 
if  they  die,  death  is  to  them  the  end  of  all  sorrow ;  whereas, 
man  is  in  pain  without  end,  for  not  doing  that  which  he 
never  was  able  to  do.  It  puts  him  in  a  far  worse  state  than 
Pharaoh  put  the  Israelites ;  for  though  he  withheld  straw 
from  them,  yet  they  could  obtain  it  by  much  labor.  But 
this  doctrine  makes  God  to  withhold  from  the  reprobates 


102  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [CHAr.  III. 

all  means  of  salvation,  so  that  they  cannot  attain  it  by  all 
their  pains.  Yea,  it  places  mankind  in  that  condition  which 
the  poets  feign  of  Tantalus,  who,  oppressed  with  tliirst, 
stands  in  water  up  to  the  chin,  yet  can,  by  no  means,  reach 
it  Avith  his  tongue ;  and  being  tormented  Avith  hiinger,  hath 
fruit  hanging  at  his  very  lips,  yet  so  as  he  can  never  lay 
hold  of  it  with  his  teeth ;  and  these  things  are  so  near  him, 
not  to  nourish  him,  but  torment  him.  So  does  this  doctrine 
make  God  deal  with  mankind.  It  makes  the  outward  crea- 
tion, the  work  of  Providenqe,  the  smiting  of  conscience, 
sufficient  to  convince  the  reprobates  of  sin,  but  never  in- 
tended to  help  them  to  salvation.  It  makes  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel,  and  the  offer  of  salvation  by  Christ,  sufficient 
to  condemn  them,  serving  to  beget  a  seeming  faith  and  vain 
hopes ;  yet,  by  reason  of  God's  irresistible  decree,  all  these 
are  wholly  ineffectual  to  bring  them  the  least  step  toward 
salvation,  and  do  only  contribute  to  make  their  condem. 
nation  the  greater,  and  their  torments  the  more  violent  an  I 
intolerable.  Truly,  if  these  things  be  so,  may  the  man 
with  his  one  talent  in  the  day  of  final  settlement  say  to  the 
Judge,  "I  knew  thee  that  thou  art  a  hard  man,  reaping 
where  thou  hast  not  sown,  and  gathering  where  t  jou  hast 
not  strewed."  Such  is  Calvinism — such  are  som.;  of  the 
difficulties  of  this  boasted  system,  which  Dr.  Rioe,  after 
proclaiming  his  readiness,  nay  even  anxiety,  to  defend  for 
years  past,  has  not  even  attempted  to  remove,  and,  though 
pledged,  I  venture  to  predict,  to  my  readers,  he  never  will 
attempt  to  remove,  by  a  direct  refutation.  Dr.  Rice  knows 
very  well  it  cannot  be  done :  he  will  not  hazard  a  trial  of 
his  powers  here.  With  all  his  fondness  for  debate — with 
liis  professed  conviction  that  controversy  serves  the  cause 
of  truth,  he  will  never  squarely  meet  these  points.  But 
why  is  this — why  will  these  issues  be  avoided  ?  Does  any 
one  believe  that,  if  they  could  be  triumphantly  met,  it 
w^ould  not  be  done  ?    Do  Presbyterians  believe  this  ?    Does 


rriAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AKD  REPROBATION.  103 

not  Dr.  Rice  understand  his  own  heart  sufficiently  well  tc 
know,  that  his  present  backwardness  proceeds  from  con- 
sciousness that  he  could  not  make  a  successful  defense? 
Let  him  not  deceive  himself  upon  this  point — let  him  not 
suppose  he  can  deceive  the  public,  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  facts  in  the  case — let  him  not  imagine  that  either  silence 
or  evasion  w^ill  answer  under  existing  circumstances.  If 
the  objections  alledged  can  be  answered,  let  him,  as  a  lover 
of  truth  and  as  a  teacher  of  the  erring,  come  to  the  work. 
If  we  are  in  error,  and  he  can  show  it  with  so  much  ease, 
he  may  thereby  advance  his  cherished  system,  and  do  good 
service  in  the  cause  of  his  Redeemer.  Will  he  allow  the 
opportimity  to  pass?  Will  he  amuse  his  readers  with 
evasions — mvectives?  Or  will  he  come  to  the  work  as  a 
candid,  magnanimous.  Christian  disputant?  All  this  is  for 
Dr.  Rice  to  determine. 

We  have  expressed  a  part  of  the  objections  we  find 
against  decrees  in  general,  and  the  decree  of  election  and 
reprobation  in  particular,  as  held  by  Calvinists.  We  have 
studied  brevity — presented  our  arguments  in  the  smallest 
possible  limits,  even  at  the  hazard,  in  some  instances,  of 
lessening  their  force;  and  we  have  avoided  using  a  great 
number  of  additional  arguments,  because  of  their  seeming 
severity.  The  objections  we  have  thus  brought  against 
Calvinism,  we  believe  to  be  legitimate  and  unavoidable  to 
the  system.  For  the  refreshing  of  our  readers,  we  subjoin 
a  brief  recapitulation. 

1.  We  object  to  the  Cahinistic  system,  that  it  renders 
the  conclusion  unavoidable  that  God  is  the  responsible 
author  of  sin — author  in  the  sense  of  originator  and  cause. 

2.  It  is  inconsistent  with,  and  destructive  of,  the  free 
agency  of  man. 

3.  It  destroys  human  accountability. 

4.  It  removes  moral  quality  from  human  actions  and  voli- 
tions— renders  man  incapable  of  vice  or  virtue. 


104  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [CHAP.  III. 

5.  In  the  day  of  judgment  it  must  place  the  conscience 
and  judgment  of  the  universe  on  the  side  of  the  condemned, 
and  against  God. 

C.  It  puts  a  justifying  plea  in  the  mouth  of  the  sinner 
fc  r  all  his  crimes  while  upon  earth,  and  renders  all  punish- 
ments, human  and  divine,  essentially  unjust  and  tyrannical. 

7.  It  asperses  the  character  of  God  in  a  most  dreadful 
manner,  inevitably  involving, 

(1.)  His  holiness,  showing  him  to  be  the  very  centre  and 
author  of  all  impurity. 

(2.)  His  benevolence,  showing  him  to  be  a  minister  of 
cruelty. 

(3.)  His  justice,  showing  him  to  be  the  direst  tyrant. 

(4.)  His  truthfulness  and  sincerity,  proving  him  to  be  an 
amalgam  of  duplicity  and  falsehood. 

8.  It  makes  God  self- contradictory,  and  the  author  of  all 
the  absurdities  and  contradictions,  yea,  of  all  things  of  what- 
ever description  in  the  universe. 

9.  It  is  calculated  to  do  away  all  sense  of  obligation,  and 
to  produce  recklessness,  crime,  and  despair. 

10.  It  is  wholly  without  foundation,  either  in  reason  or 
Scripture. 

11.  It  makes  God  the  author  of  man's  fall. 

12.  It  teaches  that  some  are  elected  to  life,  and  others 
unto  death,  wholly  without  respect  to  their  character  or 
conduct,  thus  leaving  sin  and  virtue  entirely  out  of  the 
question  in  regard  to  human  destiny. 

13.  It  renders  God  a  partial  being,  and  at  the  same  time 
entirely  destroys  the  doctrine  of  grace. 

14.  It  teaches  not  only  unconditional  reprobation,  but 
also  that  for  the  reprobates  Christ  did  not  die  in  any  sense. 

15.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptures: 
(1.)  Which  teach  a  universal  atonement. 

(2.)  Which  teach  that  some,  for  whom  Christ  died,  may 
finally  perish. 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  105 

(3.)  Which  offer  salvation  to  all  men. 

(4.)  In  which  failure  to  obtain  salvation  is  ascribed  to  the 
perversity  of  the  human  will. 

(5.)  In  which  warnings  and  expostulations  are  used 
toward  sinners,  and  also  toward  saints. 

16.  It  is  inconsistent  with  all  calls  and  invitations  to  sin- 
ners by  the  ministry  of  the  word. 

17.  It  is  inconsistent  with  commands  and  exhortations  to 
sinners  to  believe. 

18.  It  is  inconsistent  with  making  the  unbehef  of  the 
sinner  the  cause  of  his  condemnation. 

19.  It  is  inconsistent  with  ascribing  the  sinner's  damna- 
tion to  his  rejection  of  Christ. 

20.  It  is  inconsistent  in  making  the  sinner's  own  choice 
the  cause  of  his  ruin. 

21.  It  makes  it  impossible  for  reprobates  to  be  saved,  do 
what  they  may  or  can. 

22.  It  makes  it  impossible  for  the  elect  to  be  lost,  do 
what  they  may  or  can. 

23.  It  renders  all  remonstrance,  exhortation,  or  entreaty, 
either  to  the  elect  or  reprobates,  absurd. 

24.  It  makes  the  atonement,  in  itself,  in  its  very  nature, 
and  necessarily,  an  infinite  curse  to  milHons  of  human 
beings. 

Such  are  a  part  of  the  objections  we  bring  against  this 
system — all  of  tuem  imavoidably  bearing  against  it,  and 
any  one  of  them  sufficient,  as  we  believe,  to  render  it 
unworthy  of  all  credit  and  respect.  And  the  most  casual 
reader  must  perceive  that  each  one  of  these  objections 
must  necessarily  bring,  in  its  train,  many  others  equally 
revolting.  How,  I  ask,  in  the  name  of  reason,  Scripture, 
humanity,  and  religion,  can  a  system,  so  embarrassed,  find 
advocates  among  rational  beings  ? 

The  only  attempt  at  reply  is  contained  in  a  denial, 
that    they    are   a    true    representation    of    Calvinism    in 


106  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [CHAP.  III. 

the  premises.  The  argumentation  is  thus  admitted  to  be 
sound.  No  effort  has  been  made  to  coiTect  the  misrep- 
resentations— no  authority  has  been  rejected — no  specific 
points  named,  but  simply  a  blank  denial  that  Calvinists  do 
not  believe  Avhat  is  charged  against  them — no  argument 
sustaining  the  charges  has  been  refuted — no  quotation  set 
aside.  What  a  beautiful  defense  this !  How  creditable  to 
men  who  have  vaunted  their  readiness  for  controversy! 
who  have  ceased  not  to  disturb  sister  Churches,  who  were 
content  with  peace,  and  anxious  to  maintain  it !  What  an 
intellectual,  manly,  Christian  palladium  this,  when  con- 
sequences unavoidable  are  proved,  to  meet  them  with  the 
rational  and  lucid  reply,  "We  do  not  beheve  these  things!" 
But  if  this  is  the  best  defense  your  system  is  capable  of, 
we  must  not  complain.  You  have  done  the  best  you  could ; 
and  as  it  is  not  in  our  creed  to  hold  men  accountable  for 
more  than  they  have  ability  to  perform,  we  must  appreciate 
your  effort. 

You  will  excuse  us,  however,  for  going  on  to  show  how 
unsound  your  defense  is,  and  for  pointing  out  your  mistake, 
in  charging  us  with  misrepresentation.  You  believe  that 
we  are  guilty — that  the  system  is  not  so  had  as  we 
made  appear;  but  we  shall  show  you  that  the  mistake  is 
your  own — that  it  is  precisely  what  we  declared. 

I  have  charged  upon  the  system  that  it  makes  God  the 
author  of  sin,  and  destroys  the  free  agency  and  account- 
ability of  man.  Dr.  Rice  replied — for  he  commenced  re- 
plying to  my  letters,  and,  for  reasons  doubtless  sufficient 
in  his  esteem,  abruptly  ceased — that  the  objections  had 
been  often  refuted,  and  that  no  Presbyterian  author  taught 
the  doctrine  which  I  charged  upon  them.  This  last  state- 
ment of  the  Doctor's  I  have  shown  to  be  an  entire  mistake, 
by  quoting  many  authors  who  unequivocally  teach  the  very 
things  he  denies,  and  for  which  he  says  they  would  be 
deposed — I  suggest  to  the  Doctor  that  he  had  better  depose 


CHAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  107 

them  yet,  whether  Uving  or  dead — Calvin,  Hill,  D wight,. 
Chalmers,  Witsius,  Shaw,  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
Buck,  <fcc. ;  and  now,  having  proved  that  these  distin 
guished  men  did  and  do  teach  precisely  what  I  charged, 
I  leave  it  with  my  readers  to  judge  who  has  misrepre- 
sented Calvinists,  Dr  Rice  or  myself. 

But  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  former  part 
of-  his  assertion  is  also  without  foundation,  in  which  he 
says  these  objections  have  often  been  answered.  This,  I 
assert,  is  a  mistake — they  have  never  been  answered.  If 
Dr.  Rice,  as  he  affirms,  will  refer  to  a  single  answer  upon 
which  he  will  rely,  and  it  proves  conclusive,  we  will  confess 
ourselves  wrong  in  the  charges  we  have  made.  But  lest 
the  Doctor  will  find  it  convenient  to  be  silent  just  now, 
I  will  help  my  readers  to  some  of  the  answers  about  which 
these  vauntings  are  made — some  of  the  lucid  and  luminous 
refutations  given;  and  to  prevent  the  idea  that  we  have 
selected  w^eak  apologies  from  feeble  men,  we  shall  select 
from  the  champions,  the  confessed  fathers  of  the  defense. 

Take  Witsius:  how  does  he  answer  to  these  charges? 
Hear  him:  "And  though  it  be  difficult,  nay,  impossible, 
for  us  to  reconcile  these  truths  with  each  other,  [namely, 
how  God  causes  the  vicious  actions  of  men,  but  not  the 
sin  itself,]  yet  we  ought  not  to  deny  what  is  manifest,  on 
account  of  that  which  is  hard  to  be  understood.  We  will 
religiously  profess  both  truths,  because  they  are  truths, 
and  worthy  of  God:  nor  can  the  one  overturn  the  other; 
though  in  this,  our  state  of  blindness  and  ignorance  of 
God,  we  cannot  see  the  amicable  harmony  between  them." 
Now,  I  appeal  to  my  readers,  is  not  this  overwhelming 
refutation — unanswerable  argument!  How  dare  any  Ar- 
minian  ever  again  name  the  exploded  objection ! 

But  if  this  does  not  suffice,  hear  Calvin  himself,  and  see 
how,  at  a  stroke  of  his  pen,  he  demolishes  all  his  opposers. 
After  asserting  that  Adam  fell  in  consequence  of  the  Divme 


108  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  [CHAP.  Ill, 

predestination,  and  supposing  the  objection  introduced,  tha^ 
this  makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  he  thus  rephes :  "  But  it 
follows  noL,  therefore,  that  God  is  liable  to  this  reproach. 
For  we  will  answer  them  thus,  in  the  language  of  Paul, 
*0  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God?  Shall 
the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it.  Why  hast  thou 
made  me  thus  ?' "  Surely  this  is  sufficient  to  satisfy  any 
Arminian!  Can  you,  my  readers,  conceive  of  logic  more 
irresistible !  Is  it  strange  that  Dr.  Rice  should  say  this  old 
objection  has  been  answered  a  thousand  times!  Is  not 
either  one  of  the  foregoing  replies  a  thousand-fold  answei 
itself! 

But  hear  Mr.  Dick,  a  modem.  He  says,  in  answer  to 
the  objection  that  Calvinism  makes  God  the  author  of  sin, 
*'I  confess  that  the  statement  may  be  objected  to  as  not 
complete;  that  there  are  still  difficulties  that  press  upon 
us;  that  perplexing  questions  may  be  proposed,  and  that 
the  answers  which  have  been  returned  to  them  by  great 
divines  are  not  satisfactory  in  every  instance,  as  those 
imagine  wjj^o  do  not  think  for  themselves,  and  take  too 
much  upon  trust.  The  subject  is  above  our  comprehen- 
sion. There  are  two  propositions  of  the  truth  of  which 
we  are  fully  assured — that  God  has  foreordained  all  things 
which  come  to  pass,  and  that  he  is  not  the  author  of  sin. 
Inhere  can  he  no  doubt  about  either  of  them  in  the  mind  of 
the  man  who  believes  the  Scriptures.  He  may  not  be  able 
to  reconcile  them,  but  this  ought  not  to  weaken  his  con- 
viction of  their  truth."  Was  ever  argumentation  more 
transparent!  Ye  Arminians,  how  can  you  withstand  such 
reasoning!  How  dare  you  open  your  lips  again!  Where 
shall  you  find  an  apology  for  such  temerity ! 

Since  writing  the  foregoing,  I  find  Dr.  Rice  has  favored 
us  with  his  mode  of  escaping  from  the  charges  I  have 
brought  against  his  system.  Hear  him :  "  Are  these  repre- 
sentations true?"   he   asks;   and   replies,   "This   question 


OIIAP.  III.]  ELECTION  AND  REPROBATION.  109 

might  be  answered  by  a  fair  statement  of  the  doctrine, 
and  a  comparison  of  its  principles  with  the  word  of  God. 
There  is,  also,  another  way  of  answering  the  question  satis- 
factorily, namely,  hy  inquiring  what  have  been  the  fruits 
of  this  and  kindred  doctrines  called  CalvinisticT'  Then 
follows  a  long  article  to  show  that  the  fruits  of  Calvinism 
liave  been  good;  and,  therefore,  the  inference  is  drawn, 
it  is  not  liable  to  the  charges  we  have  preferred  against 
it.  Now,  I  ask  my  readers,  is  not  this  a  novel  mode  of 
escaping  logical  consequences  ?  "  The  fruits  of  the  system 
ire  good;  therefore,  the  logical  consequences,  deduced  from  its 
•premises,  are  not  legitimate  !"     Verily,  this  is  logic ! 

But  soberly,  Doctor,  do  you  not  know,  that  there  is  not 
a  particle  of  soundness  in  this  argument?  that,  if  your 
premises  were  admitted — which  cannot  be  done  without 
o-reat  abatement — the  conclusion  does  not  follow?  that,  in 

to 

direct  terms,  it  is  a  sheer  evasion,  substituted  to  lay  your 
own  apprehensions,  and  turn  away  from  the  real  matter  in 
dispute?  Why  do  you  not,  with  candor  and  confidence, 
take  up  the  real  issues,  and  show  us  how  they  may  be 
escaped  ?  If  it  can  be  done,  and  you  say  it  can — you  tell 
your  readers  it  has  been  for  a  thousandth  time — why  do 
you  waste  your  strength  in  such  complete  evasions,  which 
must  unavoidably  produce  the  impression,  that  your  repre- 
sentations are  founded  in  error? 


110  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cHAP.  IV. 

♦  CHAPTER    IV. 

THE    ATONEMENT. 

Tn  this  chapter  we  shall  take  up  the  Calvmian  view  of  the 
atonement.  What  do  Calvinists  believe  on  this  point  ?  This 
question  shall  be  answered  by  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  their  standard  authors. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  says:  "Wherefore,  they  who 
are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ — 
are  effectually  called  unto  faith  in  Christ,  by  his  Spirit 
working  in  due  season- — are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified, 
and  kept  by  his  power  through  faith  unto  salvation.  Neither 
are  any  other  redeemed  hy  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified, 
adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only.'" 

Upon  this  section,  the  expositor  of  the  Confession,  in- 
dorsed by  the  board  of  publication,  makes  the  following 
remarks :  "  In  this  section  we  are  taught,  that  Christ  died 
exclusively  for  the  elect,  and  purchased  redemption  for  them 
alone;  in  other  words,  that  Christ  made  atonement  only  for 
tlie  elect;  and  that  in  no  sense  did  he  die  for  the  rest  of  the 
race.  Our  Confession  first  asserts,  positively,  that  the  elect 
are  redeemed  by  Christ;  and  then,  negatively,  that  none 
others  are  redeemed  -by  Christ,  but  the  elect  only.  If  this- 
does  not  affirm  the  doctrine  of  particular  redemption,  or  of 
a  limited  atonement,  we  know  not  what  language  could  ex- 
press that  doctrine  more  explicitly." 

Hear  the  Confession  again:  "To  all  those  for  whom 
Christ  hath  purchased  redemption,  he  doth  certainly  and 
eff'ectually  apply  and  communicate  the  same." 

Upon  this  section,  the  expositor  of  the  Confession  re- 
marks :  "  This  section  relates  to  the  extent  of  Christ's  death, 
with  respect  to  its  objects,  and  in  opposition  to  the  Arminian 
tenet,  that  Christ  died  for  all  men — for  those  who  shall 
finally  perish,  as  well  as  for  those  who  shall  be  eventually 
waved;    it  affirms    that   the    purchase    and    application    of 


CEIAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  Ill 

redemption  are  of  the  same  extent.  In  the  fifth  section,  we 
were  taught  that  Christ  purchased  redemption  only  for 
those  whom  the  Father  hath  given  him,  and  here  it  is 
asserted  that,  to  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased 
redemption,  he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and 
communicate  the  same.  What  language,  then,  could  affirm 
more  explicitly,  than  that  here  employed,  that  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ  is  specific  and  limited,  that  it  is  neither  uni- 
versal nor  indefinite,  but  restricted  to  the  elect,  who  shall  be 
saved  from  wrath  through  him  ? 

"The  sacrifice  of  Christ  derived  infinite  value  from  the 
divinity  of  his  person ;  it  must,  therefore,  have  been  intrin- 
sically sufficient  to  expiate  the  sins  of  the  whole  human 
race,  had  it  been  so  intended;  but  in  the  design  of  the 
Father,  and  in  the  intention  of  Christ  himself,  it  was  limited 
to  a  definite  number,  who  shall  ultimately  obtain  salvation." 

The  interpretation  thus  given  to  the  Confession,  is  sus- 
tained by  the  author  quoted,  with  eleven  arguments  in 
support  of  limited  atonement.  I  think  all  will  admit,  that 
he  has  fairly  and  correctly  expressed  the  sense  of  his  Con- 
fession, and  the  doctrine  of  all  consistent  Calvinists,  His 
language  is  explicit;  and  I  embrace  his  definition,  as  the 
best  I  have  seen,  of  the  Calvinian  view  of  the  atonement. 

"  Christ  died  exclusively  for  the  elect,  and  purchased 
redemption  for  them  alone ;  in  other  words,  Christ  made 
atonement  onhj  for  the  elect ;  and  in  no  sense  did  he  die  for 
the  rest  of  the  race^ 

Corroborative  of  this  statement,  I  shall  proceed  to  quote 
from  many  other  distinguished  Calvinists,  that  there  may  be 
no  mistake  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  system,  as  understood 
by  its  friends. 

"We  shall  now  consider  the  persons  for  whom,  as  a 
priest,  Christ  offered  himself,  and  so  enter  on  that  subject 
which  is  so  much  controverted  in  this  present  age,  namely. 
Whether  Christ  died  for  all  men,  or  only  for   the    elect. 


112  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  iv. 

whom  he  designed  hereby  to  redeem  and  bring  to  salvation. 
And  here  let  it  be  premised, 

"  1.  That  it  is  generally  taken  for  granted  by  those  who 
maintain  either  side  of  the  question,  that  the  sa\dng  effects 
of  Christ's  death  do  not  redound  to  all  men,  or  that  Christ 
did  not  die,  in  this  respect,  for  all  the  world,  since  to  assert 
this  would  be  to  argue  that  all  men  shall  be  saved,  which 
every  one  supposes  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture. 

"2.  It  is  allowed,  by  those  who  deny  the  extent  of 
Christ's  death  to  all  men,  as  to  what  concerns  their  salva- 
tion, that  it  may  truly  be  said  that  there  are  some  blessings 
redounding  to  the  whole  world,  and  more  especially  to  those 
who  sit  under  the  sound  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  consequence 
of  Christ's  death ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  owing  hereunto,  that  the 
day  of  God's  patience  is  lengthened  out,  and  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  continued  to  those  who  are  favored  with  it ; 
and  that  this  is  attended,  in  many,  with  restraining  grace, 
and  some  instances  of  external  reformation,  which  has  a 
tendency  to  prevent  a  multitude  of  sins,  and  a  greater  de- 
gree of  condemnation  that  would  otherwise  ensue.  These 
may  be  called  the  remote  or  secondary  ends  of  Christ's 
death,  which  principally  and  immediately  designed  to  redeem 
the  elect,  and  to  purchase  all  saving  blessings  for  them, 
which  shall  be  applied  in  his  own  time  and  way :  neverthe- 
less, others,  as  a  consequence  hereof,  are  made  partakers  of 
some  blessings  of  common  providence,  so  far  as  they  are 
subservient  to  the  salvation  of  those  for  whom  he  gave 
himself  a  ransom. 

"3.  It  is  allowed  on  both  sides,  and  especially  by  all 
who  own  the  divinity  and  satisfaction  of  Christ,  that  his 
death  was  sufficient  to  redeem  the  "whole  world,  had  God 
designed  that  it  should  be  a  price  for  them,  which  is  the 
result  of  the  infinite  value  of  it ;  therefore, 

"  4.  The  main  question  before  us  is,  whether  God  designed 
the  salvation  of  all  mankind  by  the  death  of  Christ,  oi 


CHAP.  IV. J  THE    ATONEMENT.  113 

whether  he  accepted  it  as  a  price  of  redemption  for  all,  so 
that  it  might  be  said  that  he  redeemed  some  who  shall  not 
be  saved  by  him  ?  This  is  affirmed  by  many  who  affirm 
universal  redemption,  which  we  must  take  leave  to  deny. 
And  they  further  add,  as  an  explanation  hereof,  that  Christ 
died  that  he  might  put  all  men  into  a  salvable  state,  or 
procure  a  possibility  of  salvation  for  them ;  so  that  many 
might  obtain  it,  by  a  right  improvement  of  his  death,  who 
shall  fall  short  of  it,  and  also  that  it  is  in  their  powder  to 
frustrate  the  end  thereof,  and  so  render  it  ineffectual.  This 
we  judge  not  only  to  be  an  error,  but  such  as  is  highly 
derogatory  to  the  glory  of  God,  which  we  shall  endeavor 
CO  make  appear,  and  to  establish  the  contrary  doctrine, 
namely,  that  Christ  died  to  purchase  salvation  for  none  hut 
^■hose  who  shall  obtain  it."     (Ridgley's  Divinity.) 

"We  therefore  conclude,"  says  Witsius,  "that  the  obe- 
dience and  suffering  of  Christ,  considered  in  themselves, 
are,  on  account  of  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  person,  of  that 
value,  as  to  have  been  sufficient  for  redeeming,  not  only  all 
and  every  man  in  particular,  but  many  myriads  besides,  had 
it  so  pleased  God  and  Christ,  that  he  should  have  under- 
taken and  satisfied  for  them. 

"The  suretyship  and  satisfaction  of  Christ,  have  also 
been  an  occasion  of  much  good  even  to  the  reprobate; 
for  it  is  owing  to  the  death  of  Christ,  that  the  Gospel  is 
pwached  to  every  creature — that  gross  idolatry  is  abolished 
in  many  parts  of  the  world — that  wicked  impiety  is  much 
restrained  by  the  discipline  of  the  w^ord  of  God — that  they 
obtain  at  times  many  and  excellent,  though  not  saving  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit — that  they  have  escaped  the  pollutions 
of  the  world,  through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and 
Savior  Jesus  Christ.  And  who  can,  in  short,  enumerate  all 
those  things  which  they  enjoy,  not  through  accident  only, 
and  beside  the  intention  of  God  and  Christ,  but  by  the 
appointment   of    God?      JVot,    indeed,   with   a   desiqn  and 

10 


114  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

purpose  of  saving  them,  according  to  the  testament,  hut  from 
a  view  to  make  known  his  long-suffering  toward  the  vessels 
of  wrath,  that  is,  those  loho  are  to  perish,  who  dwell  among 
those  who  are  to  he  saved;  for  nothing  falls  out  hy  accident 
with  God,  every  thing  heing  according  to  his  determinate 
counsel. 

"  That  the  obedience  and  suflfering  of  Christ  are  of  such 
worth,  that  all,  without  exception,  who  come  to  him,  may 
find  perfect  salvation  in  him;  and  it  was  the  will  of  God 
that  this  truth  should,  without  distinction,  be  proposed  both 
to  them  that  are  to  be  saved,  and  to  them  that  are  to 
perish,  with  a  charge  not  to  neglect  so  great  salvation,  but 
to  repair  to  Christ  with  true  contrition  of  soul ;  and  with  a 
most  sincere  declaration  that  all  who  come  to  him  shall  find 
salvation  in  him. 

"  That,  nevertheless,  Christ,  according  to  the  will  of  God 
the  Father,  and  his  own  purpose,  did  neither  engage  nor 
satisfy,  and  consequently  in  no  manner  die,  hut  only  for 
all  those  whom  the  Father  gave  him^  and  who  actually  are  to 
be  saved. 

"If  2ve  search  the  matter  to  the  bottom,  we  shall  learn 
that  it  never  was  Christ's  intention  to  satisfy  for  all  in 
general.  Certainly  he  satisfied  only  for  those  he  engaged  for. 
But  he  engaged  to  do  the  will  of  his  Father.  But  this  is  the 
will  of  his  Father,  not  that  every  man  should  he  saved,  hut 
those  that  were  given  him,  that  is,  the  elect  out  of  every 
nation,  who  are  to  receive  the  gift  of  faith.'' 

"The  two  sides  of  this  question  [Arminian  and  Cal- 
vinian]  do  not  imply  any  difference  of  opinion  with  regard 
to  the  sufferings  of  Christ's  death,  or  with  regard  to  the 
number  and  character  of  those  who  shall  eventually  be 
saved.  They  who  hold  the  one  and  the  other  side  of  the 
question  agree,  that  although  the  sufferings  of  Christ  have 
a  value  sufficient  to  atone  for  all  the  sins  of  all  the  children 
of  Adam,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  time,  yet  those 


CllAr.   IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT  Hj 

only  shall  be  saved  by  this  atonement  who  repent  and 
beheve.  But  they  differ  as  to  the  destination  of  the  death 
of  Christ — whether,  in  the  purpose  of  the  Father  and  the 
will  of  the  Son,  it  respected  all  mankind,  or  only  those 
persons  to  whom  the  benefit  of  it  is  at  length  to  be 
applied." 

After  many  remarks  highly  eulogistic  of  the  doctrine  of 
general  or  universal  redemption,  the  author  remarks  of  his 
own,  the  Calvinistic  system: 

*'  The  Calvinistic  system  gives  a  very  different  view  of 
the  application  of  the  remedy;  and  the  difference  may  he 
traced  hack  to  its  fundamental  principle,  that  Christ  did  not 
die  for  all  men,  hut  for  those  in  every  nation  who,  in  tJie  end, 
are  to  he  saved.  Them  only  he  delivers  from  the  curse,  and 
for  them  only  he  purchases  those  influences  of  the  Spirit, 
by  which  faith  and  repentance  are  produced."  (Hill's 
Divinity.) 

"  Nor  do  we  hesitate  to  admit,  that  all  mankind,  as  well 
as  those  who  live  under  the  Gospel's  light,  have  been 
benefited  by  the  Redeemer's  death.  Blessings  have  flowed 
from  this  precious  fountain  of  mercy  to  our  sinful  world, 
that  would,  if  Christ  had  not  died,  been  ^vithheld.  But 
when  the  question  is  proposed.  What  is  the  extent  of  the 
Savior's  atonement?  for  whom  did  he  satisfy  Divine  jus- 
tice ?  in  whose  place  did  he  lay  down  his  precious  life  ?  we 
ansioer,  for  all  to  whom  his  atonement  shall  he  applied;  for 
all  lohom  his  Father  gave  him  to  redeem^  (Presbyterian 
Tracts.) 

"Not  so  the  advocates  of  indefinite  atonement.  Tlicy 
affirm  that  Christ  died  for  all  and  every  man.  This  loe 
cannot  helieve.''     (lb.) 

"  On  the  extent  of  Christ's  atonement,  the  two  opinions 
that  have  long  divided  the  Church  are  expressed  by  the 
terms,  definite  and  indefinite.  The  former  means,  that 
Christ  died,  satisfied  Di\ine  justice,  and  made  atonement. 


116  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cHAP.  IV 

mly  for  such  as  are  saved.  The  latter  means,  that  Chribt 
died,  satisfied  Divine  justice,  and  made  atonement  for  all 
mankind,  without  exception.  The  former  opinion,  or  what 
is  called  definite  atonement,  is  that  tvhich  we  adopt.  It  may- 
be thus  stated :  That  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  made  atone- 
ment  to  God,  hy  his  death,  only  for  the  sins  of  those  to 
ivhom,  in  tJie  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  the  Almighty,  the 
benefits  of  his  death  shall  he  finally  applied.  By  this  defi- 
nition, the  extent  of  Christ's  atonement  is  limited  to  those 
who  ultimately  enjoy  its  fruits;  it  is  restricted  to  the  elect 
of  God,  for  whom  alone  ive  conceive  him  to  have  laid  down 
his  life.'"     (Presbyterian  Tracts.) 

"  Redemption  is  certainly  applied  and  effectually  com- 
municated to  all  those  for  whom  Christ  has  purchased  it. ' 
(Larger  Catechism.) 

"And  here  we  believe,  after  all,  hes  the  main  point  of 
dispute  in  regard  to  the  atonement.  Among  those  who 
agree  as  to  its  nature,  the  chief  question  in  dispute  is. 
What  is  its  design?  Avhat  was  it  intended  to  effect?  This 
question  was  briefly  discussed  in  the  former  discourse,  and 
we  endeavored  to  point  out  some  of  the  consequences  which 
would  flow  from  the  belief,  that  Christ  died  intentionally  to 
save  all  mankind.  Such  a  belief  must  inevitably  lead  to 
Socinianism  on  the  one  hand,  or  Universahsm  on  the  other." 
(Great  Supper.) 

"  The  advocates  of  a  limited  or  definite  atonement,  [Cal- 
vinists,]  on  the  other  hand,  maintain,  that  the  atonement 
cannot  be  considered  apart  from  its  actual  application — 
that,  in  strictness  of  speech,  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  an 
atonement  for  any  until  it  be  applied — that  the  sufferings 
of  the  Lamb  of  God  are  truly  vicarious,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  Christ,  in  suffering,  became  a  real  substitute  for  his 
people,  was  charged  with  their  sins,  and  bore  the  punish- 
ment of  them,  and  thus  was  made  a  full  and  complete 
satisfaction  to  l)i\ine  justice,  in  behalf  of  all  those  who 


^HAl'.  IV.]  THE  ATONEMENT.  117 

shall  ever  believe  on  him — that  this  atonement  will  eventu- 
ally be  applied  to  all  for  whom,  in  the  Divine  intention,  it 
was  made,  or  to  all  whom  God,  in  his  sovereignty,  has  been 
pleased  to  decree  its  application.  They  beheve,  however, 
notwithstanding  the  atonement  is  to  be  considered  as  exactly 
commensurate  with  its  intended  application,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  did  offer  a  sacrifice,  sufficient  in  its  intrinsic 
value,  to  expiate  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  if  it 
had  been  the  pleasure  of  Gcd  to  apply  it  to  every  indi- 
vidual, the  whole  human  race  would  have  bfeen  saved  by  its 
immeasurable  worth.  They  hold,  therefore,  that-,  on  the 
ground  of  the  infinite  value  of  the  atonement,  the  ofier  of 
salvation  can  be  consistently  made  to  all  who  hear  the 
Gospel,  assuring  them  that  if  they  will  believe  they  shall 
be  saved;  whereas,  if  they  will  reject  the  overture  of 
mercy,  they  will  increase  their  guilt,  and  aggravate  their 
damnation.  At  the  same  time,  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach, 
that  the  will  and  disposition  to  comply  with  this  condition 
depends  upon  the  sovereign  gift  of  God,  and  that  the  actual 
compliance  is  secured  to  those  only  for  whom,  in  the  Divine 
counsels,  the  atonement  was  specifically  intended."  (Buck.) 
"  It  [the  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  iii,  sec.  vi]  is  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  the  system  of  the  Arminians,  who  hold 
that  Jesus  Christ,  by  his  death  and  suflPerings,  made  an 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  mankind  in  general,  and  0/ 
every  individual  in  particular.  It  is  not  less  opposed  to  th«5 
doctrine  maintained  by  many,  that  though  the  death  of 
Christ  had  a  special  reference  to  the  elect,  and,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Divine  purpose,  infallibly  secures  their  salva- 
tion, yet  that  it  has  also  a  general  reference,  and  made  an 
equal  atonement  for  all  men.  The  celebrated  Richard 
Baxter,  who  favored  general  redemption,  makes  the  follow- 
ing remark  upon  this  and  another  section  of  our  Confession, 
fchap.  iii,  sec.  vi,  and  chap,  viii,  sec.  viii,]  which  speak  against 
universal  redemption:  'I  understand  not  of  all  redemption, 


lid  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cHAP.  IV. 

and  particularly  not  of  the  mere  bearing  the  punishment  of 
man's  sins,  and  satisfying  God's  justice,  but  of  that  special 
redemption  proper  to  the  elect,  which  was  accompanied 
with  an  intention  of  actual  application  of  the  saving  bene- 
fits in  time.  If  I  may  not  be  allowed  this  interpretation,  1 
must  hence  dissent.'  The  language  of  the  Confession,  in 
my  opinion,  will  not  admit  of  this  interpretation ;  and,  what 
is  more,  the  Bible  is  silent  about  this  general  redemption,  or 
the  general  reference  of  the  death  of  Christ."  (Expositor 
of  Confession.) 

"It  Avas  the  will  of  God  that  Christ,  by  the  blood  of 
the  cross,  should  efficaciously  redeem  those,  and  those 
only,  who  were,  from  eternity,  elected  to  salvation,  and 
given  to  him  by  the  Father."     (Buck.) 

"It  was  the  most  free  counsel  and  gracious  will  and 
intention  of  God  the  Father,  that  the  quickening  and 
saving  efficacy  of  the  most  precious  death  of  his  Son 
should  exert  itself  in  all  the  elect,  to  give  unto  them  only 
justifying  faith,  and  by  it  to  conduct  them  infallibly  unto 
salvation:  that  is,  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  Christ,  by 
the  blood  of  the  cross,  whereby  he  confirmed  the  new 
covenant,  should  efficaciously  redeem  those,  and  those 
only,  who  were,  from  eternity,  elected  to  salvation,  and 
given  to  him  by  the  Father."     (Synod  of  Dort.) 

The  foregoing  quotations  contain  what  we  understand  to 
be  the  Calvinian  view  of  the  extent  of  the  atonement.  It 
would  be  an  easy  thing  greatly  to  extend  the  list  of  au- 
thorities, and  also  the  amount  of  quotation  from  each ;  but 
this  is  not  deemed  necessary,  as  it  is  presumed  there  will 
be  no  dispute  upon  the  point  now  in  question. 

From  the  authorities  cited,  we  make  the  following  de- 
ductions : 

1.  Calvinists  believe  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  of  suffi- 
cient value,  intrinsically,  to  make  atonement  for  all  the  feina 
of  the  whole  world,  had  it  been  so  intended. 


CHAP.  rV.J  THE    ATONEMENT.  119 

2.  That  resulting  from  his  death  are  many  benefits  and 
blessings  to  all  men — the  reprobate  in  common  with  the 
elect. 

3.  That  though  his  death  is  thus  sufficient  to  be  an 
atonement  for  the  world,  yet  it  is  not  an  atonement  for 
all,  because  he  did  not  die  for  all,  but  simply  and  only  for 
the  elect. 

The  limitation  of  his  death  to  a  part,  therefore,  in  their 
estimation  did  not  proceed  from  the  fact  that  his  death  had 
only  value  sufficient  to  atone  for  a  part,  hut  from  the  fact 
that  he  did  not  choose  to  die,  and  his  Father  did  not  choose 
that  he  should  die  for  all,  but  only  for  the  elect.  The 
death  itself  was  sufficient  to  satisfy  for  all  to  Divine  jus- 
tice; but  in  the  design  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  there 
were  some  for  whom  it  was  not  so  intended,  for  whom  it 
did  not  in  any  sense  atone,  and  who,  whatever  common 
temporal  benefits  they  receive  through  the  operations  of 
the  plan,  never  did  and  never  could  receive  salvation; 
because,  though  the  death  of  Christ  was  a  sufficient  sacri- 
fice, they  were  sovereignly  excluded  from  having  any  part 
therein  by  the  purpose  of  God,  who  intended  it  for  the 
elect  alone,  and  in  no  sense  for  the  reprobate. 

That  these  deductions  are  legitimate,  is  so  palpable  as 
to  need  no  further  vindication;  they  are  indeed  distinctly 
made  in  the  quotations  from  Witsius,  Ridgley,  and  Hill, 
already  given.  With  the  first,  of  course  we  make  no  issue ; 
and  with  the  second,  only  as  it  stands  connected  with  the 
third. 

It  is  with  the  third  we  shall  contend  in  what  follows. 
And  it  is  presumed  that  Calvinists  will  not  find  fault  with 
our  statement  of  their  faith.  We  certainly  have  repre- 
sented it  in  the  least  objectionable  light;  or,  rather,  we 
have  allowed  its  friends  so  to  represent  it.  If  any  thing  is 
to  be  gained  by  expletives  and  mitigated  statements,  we 
have  allowed  them  this  advanta:^e — blendini^  the  terrible 


120  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

feature  of  limited  atonement,  with  the  benign  history  of 
Providence  toward  those  who  are  so  unfortunate  as  to 
be  sovereignly  excluded  from  any  possible  interest  in  it — 
the  fact  that  Christ's  death  is  restricted  in  the  intention  of 
the  Father  and  Son  to  a  part,  with  the  acknowledgment 
that  it  was  ample  and  sufficient  for  all,  in  its  own  value — 
the  fact  that  if  any  fail  to  be  saved  by  Christ,  it  is  not 
because  he  had  not  abiHty  to  save  them;  but  simply  be- 
cause, in  his  infinite  and  inscrutable  mercy,  he  thought  best 
that  it  should  not  apply  to  some — that  though  these  can- 
not possibly  be  saved  by  Christ,  but  must,  necessarily,  be 
damned  for  ever,  and  damned  a  thousand- fold  worse  than 
if  he  had  never  died,  yet,  in  lieu  thereof,  he  has  given  them 
many  temporal  benefits,  and  if  he  had  so  chosen  he  could 
have  done  more  foi  them ;  but  he  did  not  so  choose.  May 
God  conduct  us  into  all  truth ! 

Having  thus  gi^en  the  Calvinian  view  of  the  extent  of 
the  atonement — namely,  "  That  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
made  atonement  to  God,  hy  his  death,  only  for  the  sins  of 
those  to  whom,  in  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  the  Al- 
mighty, the  benefits  of  his  death  shall  he  finally  applied. 
Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  hy  Christ  hut  the  elect  mdy, 
Christ  died  exclusively  for  the  elect,  and  purchased  redemption 
for  them  alone;  in  other  words,  Christ  made  atonement  only 
for  the  elect,  and  in  no  sense  did  he  die  for  the  rest  of  the 
race  " — having  thus  presented  their  view  of  the  atonement, 
in  their  own  language,  Wfe  shall  now  proceed  to  name  some 
objections  to  it. 

1.  And,  first,  we  object  to  it  in  general  terms — all  that 
has  been  objected  to  the  deicree  of  election  and  reprobation 
in  the  former  chapter;  for  the  doctrines  are  so  kindred, 
that  much  that  is  applicable  to  the  one  may  also  be  ap- 
plied to  the  other:  what  supports  the  one  supports  the 
otlier ;  and  what  opposes  the  one  antagonizes  the  other  to 
a  great  extent. 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  -  121 

2.  Particularly  I  object  to  the  doctrine  of  a  limited 
atonement,  that  it  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture.  Not  a 
solitary  passage,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  asserts  the 
doctrine,  that  Christ  died  for  only  a  part  of  mankind — no 
passage  implies  it — it  finds  no  countenance  in  any  fact 
or  principle  of  revelation.  That  it  is  repeatedly  said  that 
Christ  died  for  particular  persons  and  classes  is  not  dis- 
puted, but  it  is  nowhere  said,  it  is  nowhere  implied,  that 
he  did  not  die  for  others.  This,  then,  is  one  great  objec- 
tion I  bring  to  bear  against  this  doctrine — it  is  nowhere 
revealed  in  the  wcyrd  of  God. 

3.  I  object  to  it,  that  it  is  not  only  nowhere  taught  in 
the  woi-d  of  God,  but  is  directly  contrary  to  multitudes  of 
express  declarations  of  revelation,  and  to  the  whole  tenor 
of  Divine  teaching. 

(1.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  passages  which  teach  that 
Christ  died  for  all  men — for  every  man — for  the  whole 
world. 

(2.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  contrast 
the  death  of  Christ  with  the  fall  of  Adam. 

(3.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  represent 
those  who  are  lost  as  purchased  by  Christ. 

(4.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  make  offer 
of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  to  all  men. 

(5.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  require  all 
men  to  believe  on  and  accept  Christ. 

(6.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  represent 
the  cause  of  the  sinner's  damnation  as  being  his  rejection 
of  Christ,  and  unbeHef  in  him. 

(7.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  represent 
that  those  who  are  finally  lost  might  have  been  saved. 

(8.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  represent 
the  Lord  as  not  willing  the  destruction  of  sinners,  but 
as  regretting  their  folly,  and  desiring  them  to  turn  and 
live. 

11 


122  THE  ATONEMENT.  [cHAP.  IV 

(9.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  represent 
God  as  a  being  of  universal  love. 

(10.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  represent 
liim  as  impartial. 

(11.)  It  is  contrary  to  those  Scriptures  which  represent 
him  as  just. 

4.  I  object  that  not  only  is  not  the  doctrine  of  a  limited 
atonement  nowhere  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  not  only 
is  it  diametrically  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  revelation, 
and  many  express  passages  thereof,  but  it  is  also  adversa- 
tive to  all  our  conceptions  of  the  character  of  God  as  the 
universal  parent.  In  the  light,  or  rather  in  the  darkness, 
of  its  consequences,  we  are  compelled  to  change  all  oui 
views  of  his  character  and  nature.  Shorn  of  all  his  glo- 
rious perfections  of  infinite  benevolence,  and  impartiality, 
and  truth,  and  sincerity,  he  is  presented  to  us  as  a  hideous 
CQmpound  of  cruelty,  and  caprice,  and  duplicity,  and  false- 
hood. I  know  these  are  severe  charges;  and  it  is  their 
indisputable  truth,  as  every  one,  who  will  b^-  .it  the  pains 
of  a  faithful  examination,  will  be  compelled  to  admit,  that 
makes  them  severe. 

Can  any  man  believe,  is  it  in  the  po';7er  of  the  human 
mind,  that  God  is  a  being  of  infinite  lovt»,  when  he  damns 
millions  of  souls  eteraally,  with  the  most  excrutiating  tor- 
tures, for  that  which  they  could  not  avoid,  and  this,  too, 
when  it  Avas  in  his  power  to  save  them,  but  he  chose  not 
to  do  it  ?     Can  this  be  believed  ? 

Can  any  man  believe  God  is  impartial,  when  he,  by  a 
sovereign  act,  takes  some  men  to  heaven,  and  consigns 
others  to  hell,  when  there  was  no  difference  betw^een  them 
whatever,  but  some  were  chosen,  and  others  rejected,  for 
his  pleasure  alone  ?     No  partiality — no  caprice  here ! 

Can  any  man  believe  in  the  truth  and  sincerity  of  God, 
when  he  proclaims  himself  ready  to  save  all,  and  not  will- 
inor  -iny  should  perish — when  he  goes  to  all  with  invitations, 


CflAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  12S 

and  promises,  and  exhortations,  and  yet  the  truth  is,  thai 
many  of  those  thus  invited  he  has  damned,  for  his  own 
pleasure,  before  they  had  an  existence?  Is  this  in  your 
idea  of  sincerity? 

5.  I  object,  further:  if  it  is  true  that  Christ  did  not  die 
for  those  who  shall  finally  be  lost,  then  there  never  was  a 
IMSSihility  of  their  salvation.  Either  this  must  be  ad- 
mitted, or  it  must  be  assumed  that  a  soul  might  be  saved 
for  whom  Christ  did  not  die.  There  is  no  other  alterna- 
tive; and  our  Calvinistic  brethren  may  select  either  horn 
of  the  dilemma.  If  they  select  the  latter,  then  they  will 
do  away  with  the  necessity  of  the  deatii  of  Christ,  and 
find  some  other  name  or  means  whereby  to  be  saved.  If 
they  admit  the  former,  then  they  damn  the  sinner,  when  it 
was  eternally  impossible  for  him  to  escape  damnation ;  and 
this  his  damnation  is  for  a  cause  with  which  he  never  had 
any  consenting  connection. 

But  if  it  was  eternally  impossible  for  the  sinner  to 
escape  damnation,  then  he  is  in  no  way  to  blame;  nor 
can  he,  in  any  sense,  reflect  upon  himself  for  being  'lost, 
seeing  it  was  eternally  impossible  for  him  to  be  saved. 
He  cannot  blame  himself — no  man,  no  angel,  not  God,  can 
blame  him :  it  is  no  fault  of  his  that  he  is  damned ;  for  he 
could  not  be  saved.  Let  it  not  be  said  he  brought  himself 
into  this  miserable  condition,  from  which  there  is  no  re- 
|)jrieve ;  for  the  truth  is,  he  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
it,  unless  he  personally  acted  before  he  had  an  existence;  for 
his  damnation  ivas  fixed  before  he  had  an  existence,  and  the 
pretended  causes  were  engendered  with  him  in  the  womb 
Look  at  the  facts,  stripped  of  all  mysticism.  There  stands 
a  man  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die.  Now,  that  man  must 
be  lost !  But  why  ?  Because,  when  he  was  conceived,  he 
became  a  partaker  of  a  corrupt  nature,  which,  if  not  re- 
generated, must  eventuate  in  his  damnation.  But  Christ 
never  died  for  him,  and  so  his  nature  cannot  be  regenerated ; 


124  THE    ATONEMENT.  [c'HAP.  IV 

and  lie  must,  therefore,  necessarily,  be  damned  eternally  for 
thai  Avhich  was  given  to  him  with  his  existence.  In  Calvin's 
words,  '  Yea,  and  very  infants  themselves  bring  their  own 
damnation  with  them  from  their  mother's  womb." 

G.  Still  further,  I  object:  if  there  are  any  for  whom 
Christ  did  not  die,  such  persons  not  only  cannot  avoid 
damnation,  and  are  not  therefore  to  blame  for  being  finally 
destroyed,  but,  moreover,  they  cannot  avoid  sinning  cii  as 
long  as  they  live,  and  without  any  cessation  or  mitigation. 
They  cannot  avoid  this.  Mark  well  this  proposition !  Hu- 
man nature  is  di  praved,  and  imless  changed  by  the  grace 
of  God,  it  must  sin  on — it  must  sin  ev(  r.  This  is  admitted 
by  Calvinists.  But  there  is  no  grace  out  of  Christ.  If 
there  is  a  man  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die,  there  is  there- 
fore no  means  whereby  he  can  be  changed — he  must, 
therefore,  necessarily,  continue  to  sin.  It  is  useless  to 
remonstrate  with  him,  he  must  sin — it  is  his  nature,  and  his 
nature  cannot  be  changed ;  for  the  only  Being  in  the  uni- 
verse who  could  effect  the  change,  has  withheld  the  means. 
He  sins  as  necessarily  as  the  planet  revolves — as  water 
descends  to  its  level — as  the  stone  projected  to  the  heavens 
must  descend  to  the  earth. 

But  if  he  must  sin,  and  cannot  avoid  it — if  the  thing  i  .- 
absolutely  and  entirely  beyond  his  power,  and  all  othe 
available  power,  the  man  cannot  be  to  blame  for  it,  can  he ; 
Let  it  not  be  said  he  brought  the  disabihty  upon  himself. 
If  this  were  so,  it  would  relieve  the  case.  But  this,  you 
know,  is  not  the  fact.  His  disability  came  with  him  into 
the  world — it  was  communicated  as  a  part  of  his  exist- 
ence— it  was  his  very  and  essential  nature.  And  now,  was 
he  to  blame  for  an  existence  and  nature  which  were  forced 
upon  him — which  never,  at  any  period,  he  consented  to, 
and  which  he  never  could  avoid  ?  His  first  parent  may  be 
to  blame,  but  surely  he  cannot  be  responsible;  for  he  nou 
only  did  not  bring  the  disability  upon  himself,  but  it  Ava.y 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  125 

imposed  on  him  without  the  possibility  of  its  removal.  Let 
him  sin — no  being  in  the  universe  can  censure  him — he  is 
not  to  blame.  It  is  his  nature,  unavoidable  to  his  beino-. 
You  say  he  ought  not  to  sin.  I  answer  he  cannot  help  it 
You  say  he  ought  to  help  it.  I  ask,  ought  he  to  do  an  im- 
possibility? Can  you  affirm  this?  But  you  say  he  can 
help  it,  if  he  will.  But  can  he  will?  If  so,  by  what 
power?  His  own?  You  will  not  pretend  so  much.  The 
power  of  God  ?  But  God  will  not  communicate  the  requi- 
site assistance.  But  does  God  require  men  to  avoid  sinning  ? 
Then  Calvinism  is  false,  or  God  is  unjust. 

Take  a  similar  case.  There  is  a  man  of  scrofulous  habit — 
the  disease  is  destroying  his  life,  and  no  remedy  can  cure 
it.  You  find,  on  inquiry,  that  the  disease  has  been  in  his 
family  for  a  succession  of  generations — it  is  transmitted 
from  father  to  son.  Now,  is  the  man  to  be  blamed  for 
being  scrofulous — is  he  responsible  ?  It  was  communicated 
in  his  conception.  Is  he  to  blame  for  remaining  under  the 
influence  of  the  disease?  He  has  tried  every  remedy  in 
vain,  and  has  found  none  to  cure  him.     He  cannot  be  cured. 

But  I  object,  further :  if  it  is  impossible  for  the  sinner  to 
avoid  sinning,  and  if  this  disability  of  his  was  not  brought 
upon  himself  by  his  own  act,  then  not  only  is  he  not  to 
blame  for  his  sins,  but  he  cannot  be  required  to  do  right — 
he  is  under  no  obligation  to  do  right.  No  being  in  the 
universe  can  create  such  an  obligation.  This  must  be  so, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  a  being  can  be  brought  under 
obligation  to  perform  an  absolute  impossibility.  Will  any 
man,  in  his  senses,  pretend  so  much?  Suppose  God  were 
to  command  me  this  moment  to  annihilate  the  sun,  and  yet 
give  me  no  more  power  than  I  now  possess — would  his  un- 
righteous command  create  an  obligation?  Yet,  when  he 
commands  that  sinner,  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die,  to  do 
right,  he  commands  as  absolute  an  impossibility  as  in  ihe 
former   case.     Does  this  command  create  an  obligation . 


126  THE    ATONEMENT.  [ciIAP.  IV. 

No  mysticism  can  escape  this  plain  matter-of-fact  statement. 
But  does  God  require  men  to  do  right?  Then  Calvinism  is 
false,  or  Grod  is  a  despot!  Calvinists  may  determine  which 
horn  to  choose.  Let  not  our  opponents  refer  to  the  condi- 
tion of  fallen  angels  and  lost  sinners,  as  proof  that  obligation 
to  do  right  may  remain  when  the  ability  is  gone.  The  cases 
are  not  analogous.  In  the  former  case,  the  sinner  is  required 
to  perform  what  it  never  was  possible  for  him  to  do ;  and 
the  inabilit}'  was  communicated  with  his  existence,  and  he 
never  could  have  got  clear  of  it. 

8.  But  I  object,  further:  if  the  sinner  cannot  avoid  doing 
sin,  and  has  no  available  power  to  do  right,  then  not  only  is 
he  not  to  blame  for  his  sins,  and  absolutely  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  do  right,  but,  moreover,  he  cannot  be  punished, 
either  in  this  world  or  the  world  to  come,  for  his  delin- 
quencies, without  the  grossest  injustice  and  sheerest  tyranny* 
He  is  a  fool  for  inflicting  upon  himself  the  torture  of  re- 
morse, the  pang  of  regret,  or  as  he  gives  himself  any 
sorrow,  any  uneasiness  about  his  state.  The  God  who 
made  him,  and  who  punishes  him,  universal  intelligence 
must  pronounce  a  monster  of  cruelty!  Punish  him!  for 
what,  I  pray  you?  Is  not  his  very  being  curse  enough? 
Must  other  tortures  be  added?  And  for  what?  For  his 
sins?  He  never  could  avoid  them.  For  not  doing  right? 
He  never  had  the  power.  Damn  him  in  hell  torments  for 
ever  for  this  ?  0,  sir,  is  not  this  dreadful !  Do  you  believe 
our  heavenly  Father  is  such  a  being  as  this !  Does  not 
your  blood  shiver  in  your  veins  at  the  thought!  Is  not 
being  bad  enough !  Must  he  suffer  on  for  ever,  the  victim 
of  insatiable  malevolence!  What  should  be  thought  of  a 
human  tyrant,  who,  supposing  a  certain  family  of  his  slaves 
by  birth  were  disqualified  for  his  service,  so  that  it  was 
absolutely  impossible,  for  a  cause  connected  with  their  con- 
ception, for  them  to  do  what  he  required  of  them,  should, 
nevertheless,  appoint  them  the  usual  task,  and  yet,  because 


CIlAr.  I  V.J  THE    ATONEMENT.  127 

tliey  failed  to  perform  it,  at  the  close  of  every  day,  strip 
them  and  inflict  upon  their  naked  persons  inhuman  tortures, 
and  this  because  they  did  not  perform  absolute  impossi- 
bilities— what  would  all  men  think  of  such  a  monster? 
Would  not  the  mute  earth  open  her  dumb  mouth  and  curse 
him?  Would  not  the  heavens  execrate  the  abhorrent 
wretch?  But  shall  a  thousand-fold  worse  conduct  be 
charged  upon  the  glorious  God,  and  no  one  resent  the 
indignity  ?  Under  the  sanctity  of  religion,  shall  the  revolt- 
insc  slander  be  made  that  he  will  torture,  throuorh  all 
eternity,  men,  for  not  performing  impossibilities,  and  the 
representative  go  unrebuked  ?     It  must  not  be. 

9.  But  I  object,  further:  if  Christ  did  not  die  for  all, 
then  is  it  inconsistent  and  insincere  to  invite  all  to  come  to 
him  and  be  saved.  This  is  so  manifest,  that  I  cannot  ex- 
press my  a,stonishment  that  Calvinists  do  not  perceive  it. 
Look  at  it.  There  stands  a  man  for  whom  Christ  did 
not  die — he  never  died  for  him  that  he  might  hve.  Now, 
I  ask,  in  all  consistency,  how  can  that  man  be  invited  to 
come  to  Christ  for  life?  He  cannot  come;  and  if  he 
could,  Christ  has  no  life  for  him.  Look  at  the  invita- 
tion in  the  light  of  these  facts.  Is  it  not  horrible  ?  Can 
you  present  Christ  in  this  attitude,  without  alarm  at  the 
blasphemy  ?  What  pretense  justifies  this  invitation — this  en- 
treaty? What  excuse  is  there  for  that  Calvinistic  preacher, 
who  stands  and  entreats  all  sinners  to  come  to  Christ,  when 
he  professes  to  believe,  first,  with  respect  to  the  persons 
for  whom  Christ  died,  that  they  must  come  in  the  day  of 
God's  power,  and  cannot  come  until  that  time — next,  with 
respect  to  the  reprobate,  that  he  never  can  come,  that  the 
thing  is  impossible — what  must  be  thought  of  such  a 
preacher?  What  would  you  think  of  a  man  who  should 
go  into  a  grave-yard,  and  address  himself  in  the  same  way 
to  a  congregation  of  tomb-stones? 

Is  it  pretended  that  all  may  be  invited  to  come  to  Christ, 


128  ^  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

because  his  death  is  sufficient  for  all  ?  What  a  miserable 
evasion!  Admit  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  sufficient  for 
all,  yet  there  stands  the  fact,  it  was  not  made  for  all.  Some 
men  were  eternally  excluded  from  it.  Here  is  a  table  suf- 
ficient to  accommodate  all  the  citizens  of  a  city;  but  it  is 
surrounded  by  an  army,  who  are  instructed  to  admit  only 
the  white  portion  of  its  citizens,  and  to  prevent  all  colored 
persons  from  approaching,  so  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible 
for  such  to  reach  that  table.  Now,  I  ask,  with  what  con- 
sistency could  these  colored  persons  be  invited  and  entreated 
to  come  to  the  table  and  eat,  by  the  same  authority  that 
placed  an  army  to  prevent  their  approach,  under  the 
pretense  that  there  is  enough  for  all?  Would  not  all 
men  pronounce  such  a  procedure  miserable  duplicity — 
abominable,  shameless  hypocrisy?  If  there  be  enough, 
they  have  no  share  in  it.  But  do  you  say,  to  justify  a 
universal  invitation  of  sinners  to  Christ,  that  not  only  is 
there  a  sufficiency  in  him  for  all,  but,  likewise,  all  who  will 
may  come — there  is  no  let  or  hinderance  but  in  the  sinner's 
will  only  ?  There  is  no  army  to  prevent  him.  If  he  wlU 
come,  he  may;  and  if  he  will  not,  whose  fault  is  it? 

But,  now,  look  at  this.  The  very  reason  why  the  sinnt 
will  not  come  is  this— he  has  no  power  to  will  to  comt 
Here  is  where  the  army  is  planted  to  prevent — an  army  oj 
irresistible  motives,  to  prevent  him  from  willing.  He  cannoi 
will,  and  the  reason  is,  the  will  must  be  given  of  God,  but 
it  can  only  be  given  to  those  for  whom  Christ  died ;  but  for 
this  sinner  he  did  not  die,  and,  hence,  it  is  impossible  for 
him  to  have  the  will.  So  that  to  say  if  he  will  come  he 
may,  and  make  this  the  ground  of  the  offer,  is  arrant  trifling 
He  cannot  will  to  come  to  Christ,  and  the  reason  why  he 
cannot  will  is,  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  him,  to  make  the 
will  possible ;  so  that  the  bar  is  not  in  his  will,  but  in  the 
fact  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  him ;  and  hence  the  hypoc- 
risy of  inviting  him,  when  the  fact  is  he  is  prevented  fron: 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  129 

coming ;  and  if  he  could  come,  Christ  has  not  the  thing  for 
him  which  he  is  invited  to  receive. 

10.  I  object:  if  Christ  died  not  for  all,  then  unbelief  is 
no  sin  in  them  that  finally  perish,  seeing  that  there  is  not 
any  thing  for  those  men  to  believe  unto  salvation  for  whom 
Christ  died  not.  Their  unbelief  is  no  sin,  for  three  reasons : 
First.  Their  unbelief  is  true — Christ  did  not  die  for  them, 
and  they  believe  the  truth  when  they  believe  he  did  not. 
Second.  They  cannot  believe  without  Divine  aid,  and  are 
not,  therefore,  sinful  for  not  doing  Avhat  is  impossible. 
Third.  They  cannot  be  required  to  believe  a  lie ;  but  if  they 
believed  on  Christ  they  would  believe  a  lie ;  therefore,  in  not 
believing,  they  violate  no  requirement,  and  so  commit  no  sin. 

11.  But  if  Christ  did  not  die  for  all  men,  then  it  would 
be  a  sin  in  those  for  whom  he  did  not  die  to  believe  he 
did  die  for  them,  seeing  it  would  be  to  believe  a  lie.  But 
God  commands  all  men  to  believe — he  therefore  commands 
some  men  to  believe  a  lie  !  If  he  wills  them  to  do  what  he 
commands,  he  wills  them  to  believe  a  lie — if  he  does  not 
will  them  to  believe,  then  he  commands  them  to  do  what 
he  does  not  wish  them  to  do ! 

12.  If  Christ  did  not  die  for  those  who  are  damned,  then 
they  are  not  damned  for  unbelief.  Otherwise,  you  say  they 
are  damned  for  not  believing  a  lie ! 

13.  If  Christ  died  not  for  all,  then  those  who  obey 
Christ,  by  going  and  preaching  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture as  glad  tidings  of  grace  and  peace,  of  great  joy  to  all 
people,  do  sin  thereby,  in  that  they  go  to  most  people  with 
a  lie  in  their  mouth ;  for  if  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  the 
Gospel  cannot  be  glad  tidings  of  great  joy  to  all.  To 
many  it  must  be  a  message  of  unmingled  teiTor  and  grief; 
for  it  only  announces  that  they  are  hopelessly  lost,  and  that 
the  death  of  Christ  itself  is,  in  its  very  design,  an  infinite 
find  everlasting  curse  to  them ;  for  it  will  unavoidably  en- 
hance their  damnation  a  thousand-fold. 


130  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

But  not  only  does  it  make  those  to  sin,  by  publishing  ab- 
solute falsehood,  who  publish  the  glad  tidings  to  all,  but, 
also — and  what  cannot  be  written  without  trembling — it 
represents  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  in  the  language 
of  Mr.  Wesley,  "as  a  hypocrite,  a  deceiver  of  the  people, 
a  man  void  of  common  sincerity;  for  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that  he  everywhere  speaks  as  if  he  was  willing  that  all  men 
should  be  saved,  and  as  if  he  had  provided  the  possibility. 
Therefore,  to  say  he  was  not  willing  that  all  men  should 
be  saved — that  he  had  provided  no  such  possibility,  is  to 
represent  him  as  a  hypocrite  and  dissembler.  It  cannot  be 
denied,  that  the  gracious  words  which  came  out  of  his 
mouth  are  full  of  invitations  to  all  sinners.  To  say,  then, 
he  did  not  intend  to  save  all  sinners,  upon  proffered  and 
possible  conditions,  is  to  represent  him  as  a  gross  deceiver 
of  the  people.  You  cannot  deny  that  he  says,  '  Come 
unto  me,  all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy-laden.'  If, 
then,  you  say  he  calls  those  that  cannot  come — those 
whom  he  knows  to  be  unable  to  come — those  whom  he  can 
make  able  to  come,  but  will  not,  how  is  it  possible  to 
describe  greater  insincerity  ?  You  represent  him  as  mocking 
liis  helpless  creatures,  by  offering  what  he  never  intends  to 
give.  You  describe  him  as  saying  one  thing  and  meaning 
another — as  pretending  a  love  which  he  had  not.  Him,  *in 
whose  mouth  was  no  guile,'  you  make  full  of  deceit,  void 
of  common  sincerity :  then,  especially,  when  drawing  nigh 
tne  city,  he  wept  over  it,  and  said,  '  0  Jerusalem,  thou  that 
Killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  that  are  sent  unto 
thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together, 
and  ye  would  not.'  Now,  if  you  say  that  he  would  not, 
you  represent  him — which  who  can  hear? — as  weeping 
hypocritical  tears  over  the  prey  which  himself,  of  his  own 
good  pleasure,  doomed  to  destruction." 

Such  blasphemy  as  this,  one  might  think,  might  make  the 
cars  of  a  Christian  to  tinofle.    But  there  is  vet  more  behind . 


CHAP.  I\.J  THE    ATONEMENT.  131 

for  just  as  it  honors  the  Son,  so  it  honors  tlie  Father.  As 
alledged,  it  destroys  all  his  attributes  at  once — it  over- 
turns his  justice,  mercy,  and  truth.  Yea,  it  represents  the 
most  holy  God  as  worse  than  the  devil  can  be — as  more 
false,  more  cruel,  and  unjust.  More  false,  oecause  the 
devil)  liar  as  he  is,  hath  never  said,  "  He  willetn  all  men  to 
be  saved:"  more  unjust,  because  the  devil  cannot,  if  he 
would j  be  guilty  of  such  injustice  as  you  ascribe  to  God, 
when  you  say  that  God  condemns  millions  of  souls  to  e^  tr- 
lasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels,  for  con- 
tinuing in  sin,  which,  for  the  grace  he  will  not  give  them, 
they  cannot  avoid ;  and  more  cruel,  because  that  unhappy 
spirit  seeketh  rest  and  findeth  none,  so  that  his  own  misery 
is  the  occasion  of  his  tormenting  others.  But  God  resteth 
in  his  high  and  holy  place ;  so  that  to  suppose  him,  of  his 
own  mere  motion,  of  his  pure  will  and  pleasure,  happy  as 
he  is,  to  doom  his  creatures,  w^iether  they  will  or  no,  to 
endless  misery,  is  to  impute  such  cruelty  to  him  as  I  know 
of  no  warrant  to  impute  to  the  great  enemy  of  God  and 
man.  It  is  to  represent  the  most  high  God  as  more  cruel, 
false,  and  unjust,  than  the  devil.  Who  hath  ever  said 
worse  of  the  devil — who  can  say  worse  of  him,  than  this, 
that  he  is  a  heartless  dissembler,  ever  deceiving  watli  empty 
pretenses — that  he  delights  in  the  misery  of  his  wretched 
victims?  but  here  it  is  said  of  God,  that  he  pretends  to 
desire  the  happiness  of  his  creatures — that  he  even  comes 
and  implores  them  to  live,  weeping  over  them  while  he  en- 
treats, at  the  same  time  that  he  has  doomed  them  to  eternal 
hell  torments  of  his  own  pleasure,  in  such  a  way  as  that  it 
is  absolutely  and  for  ever  impossible  for  them  to  escape, 
and  this  for  sins  they  never  could  avoid !  If  this  be  the 
God  of  the  Bible,  in  what  does  he  differ  from  its  devil,  only 
in  his  larger  growth ! 

14.  If  Christ  did  not  die  for  all  men,  then  God  is  not 
smcere  in  requiring  all  men  to  repent,  nor  can  he  equitably 


132  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV- 

make  the  requisition ;  for  what  good  could  this  repentance 
do  them?  What  remission  of  sins  could  it  procure  for 
those  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die  ?  Manifestly,  none.  If 
it  were  possible  for  them  to  comply  with  the  requirement, 
it  could  do  them  no  good ;  but  they  cannot  compl}^  if  it 
would  be  a  means  of  their  salvation.  And  hence  it  follows, 
as  has  been  Avell  said  by  Whitby,  "  that  no  impenitent  per- 
son can  justly  be  condemned  for  dying  in  his  impenitent 
estate;  for,  on  this  supposition,  he  may  fairly  plead  that, 
Christ  not  dying  for  him,  his  repentance,  had  he  been  ever 
so  careful  to  perform  it,  must  have  been  in  vain,  since  it 
could  not  procure  the  remission  of  his  sins.  If  here  you 
say  that  it  is  an  impossible  supposition  that  any  one,  for 
whom  Christ  did  not  die,  should  repent,  you  only  strengthen 
this  his  plea,  enabling  him  to  say  he  is  condemned  and 
perisheth  for  want  of  that  repentance  whict,  from  his  birth 
to  his  dying  day,  it  was  utterly  impossible  for  him  to  per- 
form. Hence,  further,  it  must  follow  that  God  could  not 
equitably  require  of  them,  for  whom  Christ  died  not,  obedi- 
ence to  the  laws  of  Christ,  since  that  obedience,  could  they 
be  ever  so  willing  or  industrious  to  perform  it,  could  no- 
avail  for  the  remission  of  their  sins,  it  being  only  the  blood 
of  Christ  which  cleanseth  from  sin,  which  blood  never  was 
given  for  them." 

If  it  were  possible  for  those  for  whom  Christ  died  not  to 
obey  every  requisition  of  the  Bible,  it  Avould  not  contribute 
a  particle  to  their  salvation;  but  if  it  is  impossible,  then 
they  are  finally  to  be  damned  for  not  performing  impossi- 
bilities. Thus,  the  Scriptures  are  made  to  require  impossi- 
bilities, and  then  to  damn  men  for  not  complying.  At  the 
same  time,  if  they  did  and  could  comply,  it  would  not, 
could  not  bring  them  the  salvation  which  is  promised  to  all 
who  comply.     Is  not  this  creditable  to  God  and  the  Bible? 

15.  If  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  then  why  does  he  say 
he  is  not  willing  any  should  perish?     Surely,  he  is  willing 


CHAP  VI J.  THE    ATONEMENT.  130 

that  the  greater  part  should  perish,  or  he  would  have  per- 
mitted his  death  to  extend  to  them.  Why  do  any  perish, 
but  that  it  his  sovereign  will  to  limit  his  death  to  a  part? 
Indeed,  if  Calvinism  be  true,  the  will  of  God  is  the  only  orig- 
inal cause  of  the  sinner's  damnation !  Not  merely  is  it  the 
will  of  God  that  they  should  be  damned  as  sinners,  but  it 
is  because  of  his  will  that  they  are  sinners,  that  they  might 
be  damned.  This  charge,  fearful  as  it  is — and  I  confess  it 
is  startling — is  based  upon  what  has  been  abundantly  and 
ii-refutably  proved  in  a  former  place,  namely,  that  God 
willed  the  fall  of  Adam — that  he  willed  that  reprobates 
should  come  into  the  world  with  a  necessity  to  sin — and 
that,  indeed,  he  is  the  first  and  only  origmal  cause  of  all 
thin  OS,  sin  included;  and  since  he  could  not  cause  what 
tvas  contrary  to  his  will,  he  must  therefore  will  both  the 
sin  and  damnation  of  the  reprobate.  This  is  also  to  be 
argued  from  the  fact  that  he,  according  to  Calvinism,  limited 
the  death  of  Christ  to  a  part,  when  he  might  have  extended 
it  to  all,  and  this  for  his  own  pleasure.  He  did  not  will  that 
all  should  be  saved  from  sin  and  hell,  or  he  would  not  have 
limited  the  death  of  Christ  to  a  part — he  must,  therefore, 
have  willed,  contrary  to  his  own  declaration,  that  many 
should  die. 

Look  at  it.  Calvinists  believe  that  all  for  whom  Christ 
died,  must  inevitably  be  saved ;  they  believe,  also,  that  his 
death  was  sufficient  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Well, 
now  observe,  the  only  reason  why  this  sufficient  atonement 
does  not  save  the  whole  world  is  this :  God  the  Father,  and 
God  the  Son,  of  their  own  good  pleasure,  limited  it  to  a 
part.  It  was  their  good  pleasure,  therefore,  that  the  residue 
should  be  left  in  their  sins,  and  perish,  and  his  sovereign 
pleasure  is  the  cause  of  their  damnation !  Dreadful  1 
dreadful!  dreadful!  The  atonement  was  ample  to  satisfy 
the  demands  of  justice — liere  there  was  no  limit :  the  con- 
dition of  all  the  race  was  precisely  the  same — here  there 


134  THE    ATONEMENT.  [ciIAP.  IV 

was  no  limit ;  but  in  the  will  of  God  there  was  a  limit ;  as 
a  sovereign,  for  his  own  pleasure,  he  limited  the  remedy 
which  was  sufficient  for  all  to  a  part,  and  left  the  others  to 
perish !  If  this  be  so,  and  Calvinists  say  it  is  so,  are  we 
not  shut  up  to  the  conclusion,  that  all  who  are  left  in  sin 
and  damnation,  are  so  left  because  God  preferred  this  to 
their  holiness  and  salvation  ! 

16.  But  Calvinists  tell  the  poor  reprobates,  as  a  kind  of 
palliation  of  their  cruel  treatment,  that,  though  God  has 
sovereignly  excluded  them  from  salvation  in  Christ,  yet  he 
has  done  a  great  deal  for  them.  The  death  of  Christ,  it  is 
true,  has  not  made  it  possible  for  them  to  escape  the  ven- 
geance of  eternal  fire — for  they  were  created  for  this — to 
obtain  a  mansion  in  heaven,  but  it  has  procured  them  many 
temporal  blessings,  such  as  the  ministry  of  the  word, 
common  operations  of  the  Spirit,  invitations  of  the  Gospel, 
and  many  other  great  privileges,  for  which  they,  as  in  duty 
bound,  ought  to  be  very  grateful.  Ought  the  reprobates  to 
be  grateful  for  these?  Are  these  blessings?  Are  they 
blessings  in  their  design — in  their  result  ?  Or  is  it  not  true, 
on  the  contrary,  in  their  very  nature  and  design,  they  are 
the  greatest  curse  that  ever  befell  the  poor  miserable  victims 
of  Almighty  wrath?  Did  not  the  honest  Calvin  himself 
say  they  were  intended  to  fatten  them  for  the  slaughter — 
that  "  God  calls  them  that  they  may  be  more  deaf — kindles 
a  light  that  they  may  be  more  blind — brings  his  doctrines 
that  they  may  be  more  ignorant — applies  the  remedy  that 
they  may  not  be  healed  ! "  For  any  one  of  these  blessings 
they  are  destined,  in  the  purpose  of  God,  when  he  bestows 
them,  to  suffer  the  keenest,  deepest  pangs  of  hell  for  ever ! 
They  come  to  them  as  angels  of  light,  but  infix  in  the  inmost 
soul  a  thousand  arrows  of  remorse  and  anguish,  which  shall 
never  be  extracted  through  eternity.  Blessings!  designed 
and  destined  to  eventuate  in  eternal  woe !  God  of  the  uni- 
verse, protect  thy  hapless  creatures  from  such  blessings  as 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT,  I3d 

these!  Blessings!  sent  upon  the  reprobates,  that  their 
condition  may  be  rendered  more  intolerable  than  that  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment — that  a 
pretense  may  be  furnished  for  heightening  the  horrors  of 
perdition  to  utmost  excess^ — all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious 
justice  ! 

17.  If  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  and  if  only  those  for 
whom  he  did  die  can  be  saved,  then  all  for  whom  he  iid 
not  die  come  into  the  world  with  the  necessity  of  their 
damnation;  because  they  come  into  the  world  under  an 
arrangement  by  which  their  damnation  is  unavoidable,  they 
must  necessarily  be  damned,  because  there  is  no  salvation 
out  of  Christ,  and  Christ  did  not  die  for  them.  Now,  with 
the  question,  whether  they  will  be  lost  or  not,  they  have 
nothing  to  do  whatever;  because  it  was  settled,  from  eter- 
nity, when  it  was  settled  that  Christ  should  not  die  for 
them.  But  do  you  say,  the  first  cause  of  their  destruction 
was  their  corruption  of  nature,  and  God  only  passed  them 
by  in  their  sins,  leaving  them  to  suffer  just  punishment? 
Very  well ;  let  us  take  your  explanation.  Then  it  amounts 
to  this:  these  persons  were  left  to  damnation,  because  of 
their  corrupt  nature.  But  had  they  any  thing  whatever  to 
do  in  making  that  corrupt  nature  ?  If  they  had,  they  must 
have  acted  before  they  existed.  But  if  they  had  not,  then 
they  were  assigned  to  eternal  damnation  for  an  act  with 
which  they  had  nothing  to  do  whatever.  But,  again:  if 
they  were  assigned  to  damnation  for  their  corruption  of 
nature,  tlien  they  were  damned  for  a  cause  existing  in  their 
conception — then  they  were  damned,  all  of  them,  when 
they  were  unborn ;  so  here  we  have  not  the  damnation  of  a 
few  children  a  span  long,  but  of  all  who  finally  perish 
before  they  have  attained  that  stature.  But,  to  escape 
these  horrible  consequences,  do  you  adopt  this  evasion, 
that  they  were  only  passed  by  because  of  their  corruption, 
and  left  in  a  state  in  which,  when  they  should  attain  to 


136  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

personality,  they  would  inevitably  sin,  and  then,  on  account 
of  these  actual  sins,  they  would  be  condemned  and  pun- 
ished ?  Well,  let  us  look  at  this  for  a  moment.  You  say, 
they  were  only  passed  by  because  of  their  corruption  of 
nature.  What  do  you  mean  by  this?  that  it  was  deter- 
mined Christ  should  not  die  for  them  ?  Then,  I  ask,  what 
was  their  state  thus  passed  by?  Could  they  be  saved? 
If  they  could,  then  they  could  be  saved  without  the  death 
of  Christ?  If  they  could  not  be  saved,  must  they  not 
necessarily  be  damned?  or  is  there  some  intermediate 
state  between  salvation  and  damnation,  to  which  they  would 
be  assigned  ?  But,  leaving  this,  let  us  admit  that  the  final 
damnation  of  those  passed  by,  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die, 
is  on  account  of  their  actual  sins.  The  charge  still  stands 
true,  that  they  brought  with  them,  into  the  world,  the 
necessity  of  their  damnation,  and  its  final  infliction  is  without 
any  fault  of  theirs  whatever.  The  facts  are  precisely  these : 
These  unfortunate — for  they  are  not  guilty,  if  Calvinism  is 
true — persons  came  into  the  world  with  a  corrupt  nature, 
which  was  forced  upon  them  with  existence.  This  nature 
must  unavoidably  involve  them  in  actual  sih»;  because, 
being  evil,  it  can  only  produce  evil.  From  this  corruption 
there  is  no  escape:  Christ  did  not  die  for  them,  and  his 
death  is  the  only  means  of  escape  from  corruption.  They 
are,  therefore,  born  into  the  world  with  a  necessity  to  sin; 
and  if  they  are  to  be  damned  for  these  sins,  they  are  bom 
with  a  necessity  of  damnation !  Who  has  nerves  suflficient 
for  these  things  ?  Who  is  the  man  who  can  indulge  such 
thoughts  of  the  Ruler  of  the  universe,  and  the  moral  gov- 
ernment thereof,  without  feelings  of  unmingled  consterna- 
tion! Who  can  beheve,  that  a  God  of  infinite  love  has 
brought  millions  of  beings  into  existence,  with  the  unavoid- 
able necessity  of  eternal  damnation,  and  this  necessity 
ascribable  to  nothing  in  the  creature,  over  which  he  had 
control,  but  merely  to  the  good  pleasui'c  of  God ! 


C'lIAr.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  13T 

18.  I  must  add,  finally,  upon  this  point,  before  passing 
to  others  immediately  connected  therewith,  that  if  it  be 
true  that  Christ  died  but  for  a  part,  then  it  is  certain,  if 
the  devil  knows  this,  he  is  the  greatest  fool  in  the  universe, 
and  Christians  next  in  the  dimensions  of  folly.  What  has 
the  devil  to  do  any  more?  Why  shall  he  walk  through 
the  earth,  seeking  prey  ?  Why  shall  he  hunt  for  the  souls 
of  men?  He  already  has  his  portion!  They  are  counted 
outy  every  soul  of  them!  Their  names  and  numbers  are 
designated!  He  cannot  get  one  more,  though  he  move 
heaven  and  earth — though  he  employ  every  emissary  in 
hell.  He  cannot  come  short  of  one — the  thing  is  for  ever 
impossible,  for  God  is  pledged — he  has  given  them  to  the 
devil  in  an  everlasting  covenant — they  were  created  for 
him — his  they  must  be !  He  need  not  watch  and  diminish 
his  rest,  for  God  will  bring  them  all  safe  to  him,  and  no 
being  has  power  to  pluck  one  of  them  out  of  his  hand! 
Let  the  devil  rest,  and  hell  hold  jubilee,  for  God  has 
given  them  a  large  part  of  the  human  race,  for  his  own 
glory,  and  of  his  own  sovereign  pleasure ! 

And  what  shall  be  said  of  the  folly  of  Christians? 
Know  you  not,  that  all  for  whom  Christ  died  must  be 
brought  in,  in  the  day  of  his  power  ?  Not  one  can  fail — • 
the  Lord  will  hasten  it  in  its  time.  Why  shall  you  labor? 
you  cannot  make  one  hair  white  or  black.  Why  do  you 
take  trouble  about  those  whom  God  has  given  to  the 
devil?  Would  you  rob  him?  It  is  impossible!  What 
folly  you  are  guilty  of!  Pray,  preach,  mourn,  weep,  make 
yourselves  sad — for  what  ?  Know  you  not  it  is  all  in  vam  ? 
None  can  perish  for  whom  Christ  died;  none  can  escape 
for  whom  he  did  not  die.  Let  the  devil  and  Christians 
quit  their  foolish  warfare,  and  be  at  peace — let  the  world 
have  rest,  for  God  will  not  defraud  the  devil  of  one  soul 
that  is  his,  and  he  cannot  steal  one  that  is  Christ's,  and 
12 


138  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cilAF.  rV. 

Christians  can  do  nothing  by  interference !  Let  the  foolisli 
strife  come  to  an  everlasting  end. 

Such  are  some  of  the  consequences  flowing  unaA^oidably 
from  the  proposition,  that  Christ  died  but  for  a  part  of 
mankind.  That  they  are  terrible,  I  readily  admit — so  ap- 
palling, that  I  cannot  mention  them  against  you,  without 
seeming  to  pervert  and  persecute  you;  because  it  must 
ever  seem  unaccountable  to  all  men,  how  rational  beings 
can  embrace  such  absurdities — not  to  say  wicked  blas- 
phemies. I  have  found  no  pleasure  in  pointing  them  out — 
on  the  contrary,  it  has  given  me  unmingled  pain.  God  is 
my  witness,  I  am  sincerely  sorry  for  you — I  regard  you 
with  commiseration,  as  the  victim  of  a  miserable  system, 
whose  frightful  errors  I  must  suppose  you  believe,  and,  by 
some  fatal  infatuation,  refuse  to  renounce.  As  I  have 
waded  through  the  pages  of  your  divines,  I  have  involun- 
tarily regretted  that  I  found  myself  under  the  necessity  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  their  unaccountable  and  horrid 
teachings — much  more,  that  it  became  my  duty  to  expose 
them.  Would  that  you  had  been  content  to  enjoy  peace, 
and  left  your  neighbors  to  pursue  their  own  vocation,  and 
not,  by  your  unprovoked  intermeddling,  rendered  it  neces- 
*sary  to  uncover  your  revolting  and  shameful  deformities  to 
the  observation  of  our  common  enemies !  And  now,  what 
may  seem  almost  as  paradoxical  as  many  things  in  your 
creed,  after  all  that  I  have  said,  I  must  be  allowed  to 
cherish  love  for  your  Church,  in  despite  of  all  her  blem- 
ishes, and  for  yourself,  also,  as  a  professed  follower  of  my 
Savior.     May  the  Spirit  itself  lead  us  into  all  truth ! 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  objections  to  a  limited  atone- 
ment are  several  others,  resulting  from  the  Calvinian  view 
of  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  and  the  method  by  which 
those  interested  therein  become  partakers  of  its  benefits. 

If  Calvinists  hold  to  a  limited  atonement,  as  has  been 


CHAP,  3 v.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  lijQ 

seen  in  the  citations  already  made,  they  further  hold,  as 
growing  out  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement  itself,  that  all 
those  particular  persons,  for  whom  it  was  made,  must,  in 
consequence  thereof,  not  only  infallibly,  but  necessarily  and 
unconditionally,  be  saved. 

It  may  be  proper  to  make  a  few  quotations  bearing 
directly  on  this  point : 

"  To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemp- 
tion, he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  commu- 
nicate the  same."     (Confession  of  Faith.) 

This  clause,  at  the  same  time,  necessarily  limits  the 
atonement  to  those  who  are  finally  saved,  because  it  says 
all  for  whom  it  was  made  will  be  saved;  and  it  asserts 
that  all  for  whom  it  was  made  must  infallibly  have  its 
application — they  must  necessarily  be  saved  by  it. 

"  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice 
of  himself,  which  he,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  once 
offered  up  unto  God,  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of 
his  Father,  and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation,  but  an 
everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  all 
those  whom  the  Father  hath  given  unto  him."  (Confession 
of  Faith.) 

"We  are  further  taught,  that  the  atonement  shall  be 
effectually  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  all  those  who 
were  chosen  of  God,  and  redeemed  by  Christ,  and  that  it 
shall  be  effectually  applied  to  them  alone."  (Expositor  of 
Confession.) 

*'  The  Father,  from  all  eternity,  gave  to  Christ  a  people 
to  be  his  seed,  and  be  by  him  brought  to  glory.  .  .  . 
He  was  not  merely  to  procure  for  them  a  possibility  of  sal- 
•  vation,  but  to  secure  for  them  a  full  and  final  salvation; 
and  none  that  were  given  to  him  shall  be  lost."     (lb.) 

"The  intention  of  Christ,  in  laying  down  his  life,  Avas 
not  merely  to  obtain  for  those  for  whom  he  died  a  possi- 
bility of   salvation,   but  actually   to   save   them — to  brinjj 


140  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cHAP.  IV. 

them  to  a  real  possession  and  enjoyment  of  eternal  salva- 
tion. From  this  it  inevitably  follows,  that  Christ  died  only 
for  those  who  shall  be  saved  in  him  with  an  evei lasting; 
salvation."     (lb.) 

*'  Christ,  therefore,  is  called  our  surety,  because  he  en- 
gaged to  God  to  make  satisfaction  for  us — the  elect;  which 
satisfaction  consists  in  this,  that  Christ,  in  our  room  and 
stead,  did,  both  by  doing  and  suffering,  satisfy  Divine  jus- 
tice, both  the  legislatory,  the  retributive,  and  the  vindictive, 
in  the  most  perfect  manner,  fulfilling  all  the  righteousness 
of  the  law,  which  the  law  otherwise  required  of  us,  in 
order  to  impunity,  and  to  our  having  a  right  to  eternal 
life."     (Witsius.) 

"But  we  must  proceed  a  step  further,  and  affirm  that 
the  obedience  of  Christ  was  accomplished  by  him  in  our 
room,  in  order  thereby  to  obtain  for  us  a  right  to  eternal 
life.  The  law  which  God  will  have  secured  inviolable 
admits  none  to  glory  but  on  conditions  of  perfect  obedi- 
ence, which  none  was  ever  possessed  of  but  Christ,  who 
bestows  it  freely  on  his  own  people."     (lb.) 

"But,  besides,  Christ  satisfied  the  vindictive  justice  of 
God,  not  merely  for  our  good,  but  also  in  our  room,  by 
enduring  those  most  dreadful  sufferings,  both  in  soul  and 
body,  which  we  had  desei-ved,  and  from  which  he,  by 
undergoing  them,  did  so  deliver  us  that  they  could  not, 
with  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God,  as  the  proper  punish- 
ment of  our  sins,  be  inflicted  on  us."     (lb.) 

"  The  Lord  Jesus  obtained  for  the  elect,  by  his  satisfac 
tion,  an  immunity  from  all  misery,  and  a  right  to  eternal 
life.  ...  A  right  to  all  the  benefits  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  is  purchased  at  once  to  all  the  elect,  by  the  death, 
of  Christ,  so  far  as  that,  consistently  with  the  truth  and 
justice  of  God,  and  with  the  covenant  he  entered  into  with 
his  Son,  he  cannot  condemn  any  of  the  elect,  or  exclude 
them  from  partaking  in  his  salvation;  nay,  on  the  contran/t 


CRAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  141 

he  has  declared  that  satisfaction  being  now  made  by  his 
Son,  and  accepted  by  liimself,  there  is  nothing-  for  the  elect 
either  to  suffer  or  to  do,  in  order  to  acquire  either  impunity 
or  a  right  to  hfe,  but  only  that  each  of  them,  in  their 
appointed  order  and  time,  enjoy  the  right  purchased  for 
them  by  Christ,  and  the  inheritance  arising  from  it."     (lb.) 

"Before  actual  conversion,  the  elect  are  favored  with  no 
contemptible  privileges  above  the  reprobates  in  virtue  of 
the  right  which  Christ  purchased  for  them — such  as,  first, 
that  they  are  in  a  state  of  reconciliation  and  justification^ 
actively  considered,  Christ  having  made  satisfaction  for 
them,"  etc.     (lb.) 

"For  since  Christ  did,  by  his  engagement,  undertake  to 
cancel  all  the  debt  of  those  persons  for  whom  he  engaged, 
as  if  it  was  his  own,  by  suffering  what  was  meet,  and  to 
fulfill  all  righteousness  in  their  room,  and  since  he  has  most 
fully  performed  this  by  his  satisfacton,  as  much  as  if  the 
sinners  themselves  had  endured  all  the  punishment  due  to 
their  sins,  and  had  accomplished  all  righteousness,  the  con- 
sequence is,  he  has  engaged  and  satisfied  for  those,  and 
those  only,  who  are  actually  saved  from  their  sins."     (lb.) 

"Whoever  makes  a  purchase  of  any  thing  has  an  un- 
questionable right  to  it ;  a. id  it  not  only  may  but  actually 
does  become  his  property,  in  virtue  of  his  purchase,  upon 
paying  down  the  price.  And  herein  consists  our  liberty 
and  salvation,  that  we  are  no  longer  our  own,  nor  the  prop- 
erty of  sin,  nor  of  Satan,  but  the  property  of  Christ."     (lb.) 

"Divines  explain  themselves  differently  as  to  the  condi- 
tions of  the  covenant  of  grace.  We,  for  our  part,  agree 
wdth  those  w^ho  think  that  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  speak 
accurately  with  respect  to  us,  has  no  conditions."     (lb.) 

"Jesus  Christ  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Savior  of 
ihose  persons,  and  God  gave  them  to  him  to  be  redeemed 
oy  his  blood,  to  be  called  by  his  Spirit,  and  finally  to  be 
glorified  with  him.     All  that  Christ  did,  in  the  character  of 


142  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cUAr.  IV. 

mediator,  was  in  consequence  of  this  original  appointment 
of  the  Father,  which  has  received,  from  many  divines,  the 
name  of  the  covenant  of  redemption — a  phrase  which 
suggests  the  idea  of  a  mutual  stipulation  between  Christ 
and  the  Father,  in  which  Christ  undertook  all  the  work 
which  he  executed  in  human  nature,  and  which  he  con- 
tinues to  execute  in  heaven,  in  order  to  save  the  elect; 
and  the  Father  promised  that  the  persons  for  whom  Christ 
died  should  be  saved  by  his  death.  According  to  the  tenor 
of  this  covenant  of  redemption,  the  merits  of  Christ  are 
not  considered  the  cause  of  the  decree  of  election,  but  as  a 
part  of  that  decree:  in  other  words,  God  was  not  moved 
by  the  mediation  of  Christ  to  choose  certain  persons  out  of 
the  great  body  of  mankind  to  be  saved,  but,  having  chosen 
them,  he  conveys  all  the  means  of  salvation  through  the 
hannel  of  this  mediation."     (Hill.) 

"  Christ  engaged  to  pay  the  debt  of  his  people,  and  sat- 
isfy for  the  wrongs  and  injuries  done  by  them.  There  is  a 
two-fold  debt  paid  by  Christ  as  a  surety  of  his  people — the 
'^ne  is  a  debt  of  obedience  to  the  law  of  God.  Another 
thing  which  Christ,  as  a  surety,  engaged  to  do,  was  to  bring 
all  the  elect  safe  to  glory."     (Gill.) 

In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  chapters  of  the  second 
book  of  Calvin's  Institutes,  it  is  elaborately  taught,  that 
Christ  has  suffered  and  obeyed  for  his  elect,  so  that  their 
salvation  is  positively  secured,  their  debt  being  paid,  and 
they  being  entitled  to  salvation.  "If  Christ  has  satisfied 
for  our  sins — if  he  has  sustained  the  punishment  due  to 
us — if  he  has  appeased  God  by  his  obedience,  then  salva- 
tion has  been  obtained  for  us  by  his  righteousness." 

"Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace  unto  sinners, 
in  which  he  pardoneth  all  their  sins — accepteth  and  ac- 
counteth  their  persons  righteous  in  his  sight;  not  for  any 
thing  wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but  only  for  the 
perfect  obedience  and  full  satisfaction  of  Christ,  by  God 


CHAP.  IV.}  THE    ATONEMENT.  143 

imputed  to  them,  and  received  by  faith  alone."  (Larger 
Catechism.) 

"  Although  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  make 
a  proper,  real,  and  full  satisfaction  to  God's  justice,  in  the 
behalf  of  them  that  are  justified,  yet,  inasmuch  as  God  ac- 
cepteth  the  satisfaction  from  a  surety,  which  he  might  have 
demanded  of  them,  and  did  provide  this  surety,  his  only 
Son,  imputing  his  righteousness  to  them,  and  requiring 
nothing  of  them  for  their  justification  but  faith,  which  also 
is  his  gift,  their  justification  is  to  them  of  free  grace."    (lb.) 

"  Faith  justifies  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  because 
of  those  other  graces  which  do  always  accompany  it,  or  of 
good  works  that  are  the  fruits  of  it,  nor  as  if  the  grace  of 
faith,  or  any  act  thereof,  were  imputed  to  him  for  justifica- 
tion, but  only  as  it  is  an  instrument  by  which  he  receiveth 
and  applieth  Christ  and  his  righteousness."     (lb.) 

"The  imputation  that  respects  our  justification  before 
God,  is  God's  gracious  donation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  believers,  and  his  acceptance  of  their  persons  as 
righteous  on  the  account  thereof.  Their  sins  being  imputed 
to  him,  and  his  obedience  being  imputed  to  them,  they  are, 
in  virtue  hereof,  both  acquitted  from  guilt,  and  accepted  as 
righteous  before  God."     (Buck.) 

"The  Calvinists  say,  that  the  faith  and  good  works  of  the 
elect  are  the  consequence  of  their  election.  God  having, 
from  all  eternity,  chosen  a  certain  number  of  persons,  did, 
in  time,  give  his  Son  to  become  their  Savior — he  bestows 
upon  them,  through  him,  (unconditionally,)  that  grace  which 
effectually  determines  them  to  repent  and  believe,  and  so 
effectually  conducts  them,  by  faith  and  good  works,  unto 
everlasting  life.  These  are — faith  and  good  works  not  con- 
ditions, but — the  fruit  of  election,  and  they  were,  from 
eternity,  known  to  God,  because  they  were,  in  time,  to  be 
produced,  by  the  execution  of  the  Divine  decree."     (Hill.) 

*•'  The  atonement  was  a  satisfaction  made  for  the  sins  of 


144  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cHAP.  IV. 

tlie  elect,  which  had  respect  to  them  personally,  and  secures 
the  pardon  of  all  their  iniquities.  Christ  was  substituted 
for  the  elect,  to  obey  and  suffer  in  their  stead,  and  was,  by 
imputation,  legally  gmlty ,  so  that  the  law  could  demand 
his  death.  In  the  decree  of  election,  the  sinners  who  will 
be  saved  were  given  to  Christ  to  be  justified.  They  were 
given  when  ungodly,  and  not  from  any  foreseen  faith  and 
repentance.  The  ground  of  pardon  is  the  mystical  union 
with  the  Lord  Jesus  Clirist."     (Ely's  Contrast.) 

"  Christ,  being  a  propitiation  for  us,  does  also  imply,  that 
God  did  also  accept  of  the  passive  obedience  of  Christ, 
together  with  his  action,  as  sufficient  satisfaction  to  the 
demands  of  justice.  So  that  the  imputation  of  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  does  fully  and  perfectly  acquit  the  believer 
from  the  guilt  of  sin,  the  empire  of  Satan,  the  curses  of 
the  law,  and  the  damnation  of  hell.  God  has  received 
satisfaction  from  the  surety^  and,  therefore,  will  demand  no 
more  from  the  principal  debtor."     (Dickinson.) 

"Those  whom  God  effectually  calleth,  he  also  freely 
justifieth;  not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them,  but  by 
pai'doning  their  sins,  and  by  accounting  and  accepting  their 
persons  as  righteous ;  not  for  any  thing  wrought  in  them,  or 
done  by  them,  but  for  Christ's  saTce  alone;  not  by  imputing 
faith-^itself  the  act  of  believing — or  any  other  evangelical 
obedience  to  them,  as  their  righteousness,  hut  by  imputing 
the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ  unto  tliem,  they 
receiving  and  resting  on  him  and  his  righteousness  by  faith ; 
which  faith  they  have  not  themselves- — it  is  the  gift  of  God. 
.  .  .  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  fully  dis- 
charge the  debt  of  all  those  that  are  thus  justified,  and  did 
make  a  proper,  real,  and  full  satisfaction  to  his  Father's 
justice  in  their  behalf."     (Confession  of  Faith.) 

"Those  who  maintain  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law,  and 
Buffered  its  penalty  in  our  stead,  and  thereby  made  a 
true  and  proper  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice,  believe  that 


CHAP.   lY.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  145 

his  obedience  and  suflfering,  constituting  what  is  usually 
styled  his  righteousness,  are  imputed  to  the  believer  for  his 
justification,  Christ's  righteousness  being  received  by  faith, 
as  its  instrument.  Accordingly,  justification  consists,  not 
only  in  the  pardon  of  sin,  or,  in  other  words,  in  the  release 
of  the  believing  sinner  from  punishment,  but  also  in  the 
acceptance  of  his  person  as  righteous,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Jaw,  through  the  obedience  of  Christ,  reckoned  or  imputed 
to  him,  by  which  he  has  a  title  to  eternal  life."  (Old  and 
New  Theology,  p.  133.) 

"  They  whose  sins  he  bore  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree — 
tvhose  sins  he  suffered  for,  cannot,  with  the  most  palpable 
violation  of  all  right,  and  law,  and  justice,  be  themselves 
constrained  to  suffer  for  the  same  sins.  Therefore,  the 
atonement,  the  satisfaction  rendered  to  Divine  justice,  is  as 
extensive  as  the  sheep  of  Christ's  flock,  and  no  more — the 
atonement  is  as  long  and  as  broad  as  the  salvation  of  God ; 
or,  in  other  words,  they  whose  sins  are  washed  out  in  the 
blend  of  Calvary  must  be  saved,  and  none  others  can  be. 
In  other  words,  they,  and  all  they  for  whom  Christ  died, 
for  whom  he  paid  the  ransom  or  price  of  redemption,  will  be 
saved,  and  none  other."     (Junkins  on  Justification,  p.  220.) 

"As  God  doth  not  will  that  each  individual  of  mankind 
should  be  saved,  so  neither  did  he  will  that  Christ  should 
properly  and  immediately  die  for  each  individual  of  man- 
kind: whence  it  follows,  that  though  the  blood  of  Christ, 
from  its  own  intrinsic  dignity,  was  sufficient  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  all  men,  yet,  in  consequence  of  his  Father's  appoint- 
ment, he  shed  it  intentionally,  and,  therefore,  effectually 
and  immediately,  for  the  elect  only.'"  (Toplady  et  Zan- 
chius,  p.  37.) 

"The  absolute  will  of  God  is  the  original  spring  and 
efficient  cause  of  his  people's  salvation.  I  say  the  origmal 
and  efficient;  for,  sensu  complexo,  there  are  other  interme- 
diate causes  of  their  salvation,  which,  however,  all  result 

13 


]  46  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

froin,  and  are  subservient  to  this  primary  one — the  will  of 
God.  Such  are  his  everlasting  choice  of  them  to  eternal 
life;  the  eternal  covenant  of  grace  entered  into  by  the 
Trinity;  the  incarnation,  obedience,  death,  and  intercession 
of  Christ  for  them :  all  ^f  which  are  so  many  links  in  the 
great  chain  of  causes."     (lb.,  p.  43.) 

"  Since  this  absolute  will  of  God  is  both  immutable  and 
omnipotent,  we  infer,  that  the  salvation  of  every  one  of  the 
elect  is  most  infallibly  certain,  and  can  by  no  means  be  pre- 
vented. This  necessarily  follows,  from  what  we  have 
already  asserted  and  proved  concerning  the  Divine  will, 
which,  as  it  cannot  be  disappointed  or  made  void,  must 
imdoubtedly  secure  the  salvation  of  all  whom  God  wills 
should  be  saved."     (lb.,  p.  48.) 

"  By  the  purpose  or  decree  of  God,  we  mean  his  deter- 
minate counsel,  whereby  he  did,  from  all  eternity,  preordain 
whatsoever  he  should  do,  or  permit  to  be  done,  in  time.  In 
particular,  it  signifies  his  everlasting  appointment  of  some 
men  to  life,  and  of  others  to  death,  which  appointment  flows 
entirely  from  his  own  free  and  sovereign  will."    (lb.,  p.  47.) 

"  Nor  could  the  justice  of  God  stand,  if  he  were  to  con- 
demn the  elect,  for  whose  sins  he  has  received  ample 
satisfaction  at  the  hand  of  Christ;  or  if  he  were  to  save 
the  reprobate,  who  are  not  interested  in  Christ."  (lb., 
p.  92.) 

*'  Those  who  are  ordained  to  eternal  life,  were  not  so 
ordained  on  account  of  any  worthiness  foreseen  in  them, 
or  of  any  good  works  to  be  wrought  by  them,  nor  yet  for 
their  future  faith ;  but  solely  of  free,  sovereign  grace,  and 
according  to  the  mere  pleasure  of  God.  This  is  evident, 
among  other  considerations,  from  this:  that  faith,  repent- 
ance, and  holiness,  are  no  less  the  free  gift  of  God  than 
eternal  hfe  itself."     (lb.,  p.  94.) 

*'Not  one  of  the  elect  can  perish;  but  they  must  all, 
necessarilj^,  be  saved.     The  reason  is  this:   because   God 


CHAP.   IV.']  THE    ATONEMENT.  147 

simply  and  unchangeably  Avills  that  all  and  every  one  of 
those  whom  he  hath  appointed  unto  life  should  be  eternally 
glorified.  .  .  .  Now,  that  is  said  to  be  necessary,  quod 
nequit  aliter  esse,  which  cannot  be  otherwise  than  it  is." 
(lb.,  p.  98.) 

"  Of  those  whom  God  hath  predestined,  none  can  perish, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  all  his  own  elect.  They  are  the  elect 
who  are  predestinated,  foreknown,  and  called  according  to 
purpose.  Now,  could  any  of  these  be  lost,  God  would  be 
disappointed ;  therefore,  they  can  never  perish."  (lb., 
p.  99.) 

"  Our  blessed  Redeemer  has  not  only  procured  for  be- 
lievers the  pardon  of  their  sins  and  reconciliation  unto  God, 
but  he  has  also  purchased  for  them  a  title  to  God's  favor 
here,  and  eternal  happiness  hereafter.  Now,  if  Christ  has 
purchased  this  inheritance  for  the  believer,  and  made  over 
the  title  to  him  in  his  justification,  who  shall  deprive  him 
of  his  own  estate,  procured  for  him  at  such  an  infinite 
price?"     (Dickinson's  Five  Points,  p.  268.) 

Now,  from  these  quotations  I  make  the  following  deduc- 
tions, as  further  setting  forth  the  Calvinian  view  of  the 
atonement : 

1.  All  those  for  whom  Christ  died  must  necessarily  be 
saved,  and  cannot  by  any  means  perish. 

2.  Their  salvation  is  thus  certain,  because  his  death 
actually  paid  their  debt  to  Divine  justice,  and  procured 
them  a  right  to  eternal  life,  by  suffering  and  obeying  in 
their  stead,  which  suffering  and  obedience  is  made  theirs 
by  imputation. 

That  we  do  no  injustice  to  our  Calvinistic  brethren,  when 
we  charge  them  wdth  teaching  that  all  for  whom  Chi-ist 
died — the  elect — must  infalhbly  be  saved,  we  presume  no 
one  of  their  number  will  deny,  as  it  would  be  a  denial  of 
aH  their  written,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  their  oral 
teaching.     Upon   this   point,  indeed,  they   are   peculiarly 


148  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cHAP.  IV. 

eloquent  and  harmonious.  Their  whole  system  is  shaped 
to  accommodate  it.  And  if  I  do  at  all  understand  the 
quotations  already  made,  and  the  general  tone  of  Calvinistic 
theology,  the  ground  of  the  certainty  of  the  salvation  of 
the  elect  is  this :  1*.  They  are  the  elect,  or  they  are  the 
persons  chosen  of  God,  with  an  unchangeable  purpose, 
from  eternity,  to  be  saved,  and  they  must,  therefore,  be 
saved.  2.  But,  second,  as  God  ordained  these  some  to 
glory,  so  he  appointed  the  means  of  infallibly  bringing 
them  to  glory,  which  were  that  Christ  should  become  their 
surety,  and  both  obey  and  suffer  for  them,  and  so  purchase 
a  title  for  them  to  everlasting  life.  In  other  words,  Cal- 
vinists  believe  that  the  elect  will  necessarily  be  saved, 
because  Christ  has  suffeied  the  penalty  due  for  all  their 
sins,  and  that  they  cannot  therefore  be  held  to  suffer — 
their  sins  are  indeed  no  longer  theirs,  having  been  imputed 
to  Christ,  and  he  has  already  suffered  their  penalty;  and, 
further,  he,  by  his  holy  and  spotless  life,  has  fulfilled  all 
righteousness ;  and  this,  his  obedience  and  righteousness,  is 
accounted  or  imputed  to  the  elect — those  for  whom  he 
died— so  that  their  righteousness  is  henceforth  complete  in 
Christ;  and  thus,  by  virtue  of  his  death  and  obedience, 
which  have  perfectly  satisfied  the  law  for  them,  they  must 
be  saved. 

Am  I  correct  in  this  apprehension  of  Calvinism  ?  Will 
any  Calvinist  say  I  am  not?  Do  they  not  all  teach  that 
Christ  has  entirely  paid  the  debt  of  his  people? — that  he 
has  perfectly  satisfied  for  their  sins  ? — that  nothing  is  want- 
ing, on  their  part,  to  render  the  atonement,  thus  made  for 
them,  complete?  Do  they  not  also  teach  that  Christ  has 
fully  obeyed  all  righteousness  for  his  people,  and  that  this — 
his  obedience — is  imputed  to  them,  and  thus  becomes  their 
own?  that  is,  it  is  just  the  same  as  though  they  had  them- 
selves perfectly  obeyed. 

And  this  transfer  of   their  sins  to   Christ,  and   of   his 


CHAP.  IV.J  THE    ATONEMENT.  149 

righteousness  to  them,  is  entirely  without  conditions  oa 
their  part.  Now,  mark  well  this  point.  They  are  not  re- 
quired to  do  any  thing  by  which  this  atonement,  in  either 
branch  of  it,  becomes  theirs.  It  is  so  independently  of 
them !  Whatever  they  are  expected  to  do,  as  the  elect,  is  not 
a  means  whereby  this  satisfaction  becomes  theirs,  but  it  is 
because  this  satisfaction  is  theirs.  I  ask  my  readers  to  look 
critically  into  these  points,  as  my  object  is  here  to  show 
some  of  the  labyrinthian  intricacies  of  this  system,  and 
expose  some  of  its  most  dangerous  errors.  Here  is  one  of 
the  points  where,  for  purposes  of  convenience,  it  is  wont  to 
assume  an  Arminian  garb,  and  bewilder  with  its  equivoca- 
tions. Calvinists  talk  about  conditions — Dr.  Rice  is  wont 
to  use  this  language — as  though  they  believed  it  depended 
upon  something  which  the  elect  should  do,  whether  the 
atonement  should  be  applied  to  them  or  not — they  talk 
about  salvation  by  faith  and  repentance,  as  though  these 
were  conditional   to   salvation!      Now,  the    common   idea 

attached  to  the  term  condition  is  this :  that  it  is  somethino- 

o 

upon  which  the  occurrence  of  another  thing  depends. 
When  we  speak  of  conditions  of  salvation,  we  mean  some- 
thing by  Avhich  salvation  is  brought  about.  When  we 
speak  of  the  condition,  as  performed  by  man,  we  mean 
something  which  he  may  or  may  not  perform,  according  as 
he  wills,  and  upon  which  his  salvation  depends.  But  Cal  • 
vinists  do  not  mean  this  when  they  use  the  term  condition — 
they  do  not  mean  that  the  question,  whether  the  atonement 
shall  apply  to  the  elect,  depends  upon  any  conditions  which 
he  may  or  may  not  perform.  On  the  contrary,  they  believe 
that  it  is  his,  and  is  applied  without  any  condition — that 
whatever  the  sinner  does  in  his  salvation,  is  because  the 
atonement  is  already  irresistibly  applied  to  him,  and  not 
that  he  may  procure  its  application.  He  is  regenerated 
irresistibly,  because  he  is  atoned  for ;  and  then,  because  he 
is  regenerated,   he  must  produce  all  the  fruits  of  faith. 


150  THE    ATONEMENT.  [cnAP.  IV. 

repentance,  &c. ;  and  now,  to  talk  about  these  as  conditions 
(jf  salvation,  is  sheer  nonsense — it  is  to  talk  about  conditions 
of  the  existence  of  a  thing,  which  depend  upon  its  exist- 
ence, and  are  consequent  thereto. 

To  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  above  statement, 

1.  I  object,  first,  that,  making  the  salvation  of  those  for 
whom  Christ  died  both  infallible  and  unconditional,  it  is  a 
doctrine  nowhere  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  utterly 
without  foundation  in  the  Bible.  It  is  spurious  ore,  repro- 
bate silver,  taken  from  some  other  mine  besides  Divine 
revelation. 

2.  It  is  expressly  contrary  to  all  those  Scriptures  which 
teach  a  conditional  salvation; 

3.  To  those  which  teach  that  some  for  whom  Christ  died 
may  come  short  of  life; 

And  to  all  the  classes  of  Scriptures  already  enumerated 
against  this  doctrine  of  limited  atonement. 

4.  I  object:  it  renders  it  unnecessary,  nay,  impossible, 
for  the  elect  to  do  any  thing  in  order  to  their  salvation, 
and  as  it  is  unnecessary  and  impossible  for  them  to  do  any 
thing  conditional  to  salvation,  so  it  does  not  require  them  to 
do  any  thing.  "Whatever  they  shall  find  themselves  able  to 
do,  and  whatever  they  are  required  to  do,  is  the  fruit  of 
their  being  already  saved  without  their  consent.  Is  this 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible?  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  Cal- 
vinists  teach  that  faith  is  a  condition  of  salvation,  implying 
a  free  exercise  of  the  creature.  This  is  what  they  teach : 
that  certain  persons  are  elected  unto  life — that  for  these 
Christ  makes  satisfaction,  or,  in  other  words,  saves  them — 
that  this  salvation  includes  the  spiritual  life,  from  its  begin- 
ning to  ite  eternal  completion  in  heaven — and  that  this  is 
developed,  1.  In  irresistible  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth, 
without  the  action  of  the  man.  2.  That  this  irresistible 
regeneration  develops,  as  a  cause,  the  fruits  of  faith  and  a 
holy  life.     3.  That  these  are  crowned  with  glory;  but  the 


CHAP.  IV. J  THE    ATONEMENT.  151 

man,  in  the  whole  process,  has  only  passively  experienced 
an  unconditional  salvation,  commenced  and  perfected  by 
irresistible  agency.  This,  then,  is  my  objection,  that  it 
renders  it  unnecessary  and  impossible  for  the  elect  to  do 
any  thing  iu  order  to  their  salvation. 

5.  But  I  further  object,  that,  if  true,  then  the  persons 
for  whom  Christ  died  are  not  only  not  required  to  do  any 
tiling  in  order  to  their  salvation,  but,  also,  that  they  cannot 
avoid  being  saved — the  thing  is  utterly  and  eternally  out 
of  the  question,  if  Calvinism  is  true — they  cannot  prevent 
themselves  from  going  to  heaven.  My  proposition  is  not 
that  they  will  not,  but  tkey  cannot — nothing  in  the  range 
of  their  power — they  may  sin  to  their  utmost  ability,  and 
they  will  not  suffer  the  least  inconvenience  from  it,  so  far 
as  their  eternal  salvation  is  concerned.  But  now  look  at 
this.  There  stands  a  man  that  never  can  get  to  heaven — 
the  thing  is  impossible,  and  eternally  has  been  so.  Poor 
creature!  he  must  sufiFer  the  torments  of  an  ever- burning 
hell — he  must  lie  down  with  devils,  and  w^eep,  and  wail, 
and  sorrow,  without  relief,  while  the  spark  of  immortality 
glows  in  his  undying  soul — he  cannot  help  it — and  this  for 
no  avoidable  fault  of  his — he  was  created  to  howl  amid 
these  flames.  There  stands  another  man — by  nature  he  is 
precisely  such  as  the  former — but  this  man  cannot  possibly 
miss  of  heaven.  Nothing  that  he  can  do  can  keep  him 
out  of  its  blessedness.  He  may  sin  until  his  enormities 
would  make  a  devil  pale,  if  it  were  possible ;  but  this  can- 
not even  endanger  his  salvation;  his  price  has  been  paid, 
and  saved  he  must  be;  he  is  deprived  of  the  ability  to 
keep  himself  from  salvation!  And  now  the  question 
arises,  w^hy  this  difference?  And  you  are  told  it  is  the 
good  pleasure  of  God!  Hold,  I  beseech  you!  Does  not 
your  whole  nature  rise  up  against  such  a  sentiment?  Is 
there  not  an  involuntary  shudder  at  the  bare  idea  ?  Does 
not  your  reason,  and  all  that  is  human  in  you,  revolt  at  it  ? 


J  52  THE    ATONEMENT,  [CHAP.  IV. 

But  is  not  this  sentiment  calculated,  inevitably,  to  pro- 
duce licentiousness,  recklessness,  and  despair?  What  else 
can  be  its  legitimate  fruits?  It  comes  to  all  men,  elect 
and  non-elect,  with  the  first  lesson:  You  are  impotent — 
you  cannot  do  any  thing  toward  achieving  salvation,  until 
you  are  regenerated — you  cannot  even  put  forth  a  virtuous 
desire,  until  this  work  is  accomplished.  This  being  so,  the 
sinner  must  wait  for  regeneration ;  for  he  cannot  stir  till  he 
is  regenerated.  But  then  follows  the  second  lesson:  If 
you  are  not  of  the  elect,  you  cannot  be  regenerated;  for 
Christ  has  died  for  none  but  the  elect,  and  no  man  can  be 
regenerated  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die;  but  if  you  are 
of  the  elect,  you  cannot  avoid  being  regenerated,  because 
all  for  whom  Christ  died  must  be  regenerated,  or  effectu- 
ally called;  and  this  by  irresistible,  unsolicited  grace.  At 
this  point,  the  sinner  perceives  that  the  whole  matter  is 
infallibly  fixed — that  his  agency  i^  entirely  excluded:  if 
elect,  the  work  must  be  done :  if  not  elect,  it  is  impossible ; 
and  nor>'  ensues,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  hopeless  in- 
action or  reckless  licentiousness.  With  these  truths  in  his 
mind,  what  can  be  said  to  a  sinner  as  an  inducement  to 
attend  to  his  salvation?  or,  rather,  is  it  not  all  sheer  folly 
to  address  him  at  all  on  that  subject  ? 

Do  you  exhort  him  to  forsake  sin  ?  He  says,  "  I  cannot." 
To  repent?  "I  cannot,  until  regenerated.  This  is  God's 
work,  and  not  mine."  Do  you  warn  him  of  danger,  and 
exhort  him  to  flee  ?  He  smiles  at  your  childish  folly,  and 
answers  you,  "It  is  all  fixed  without  my  agency."  Thus 
the  whole  man  is  neutralized,  and  hopeless  recklessness 
superinduced. 

6.  But  what  has  now  been  objected  had  respect  alone 
to  this  aspect  of  the  subject:  that  the  salvation  of  those 
for  whom  Christ  made  atonement,  is  infallibly  certain  and 
unconditional  on  their  part.  I  now  object,  further,  to  the 
ground  upon  which  salvation  is  declared.     It  has  two  parts : 


CHAF.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  153 

1.  Christ  has  absolutely  paid  the  debt  of  liis  people, 
and  released  them  from  the  obligation.  In  other  words, 
he  took  their  sins  upon  himself,  and  suflfered  their  penalty 
in  such  a  way  that  they  cannot  be  required  to  suffer  them- 
selves; so  that  they  can  commit  no  sin  but  what  Christ 
has  fully  satisfied  for  it.  If  this  be  true,  of  course  the 
elect  must  unconditionally  escape  punishment,  because 
their  punishment  has  already  been  inflicted  upon  their 
substitute,  and  Divine  justice  is  fully  and  entirely  satisfied. 
2.  As  the  elect  are  thus  brought  into  the  enjoyment  of 
unconditional  salvation,  so  far  as  deliverance  from  punish- 
ment is  concerned,  so,  in  the  second  place,  they  are,  by  a 
similar  process,  made  completely  righteous;  namely,  as 
Christ  suffered  for  them,  so,  also,  he  obeyed  for  them,  and 
his  perfect  righteousness  is  imputed  to  them.  He  obeyed 
perfectly,  and  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  and  this  is  imputed 
to  them,  or  it  is  accounted  precisely  the  same  as  though 
they  had  obeyed  themselves;  and,  therefore,  they  are  ac- 
counted worthy  of  life,  as  being  righteous  in  Christ.  Thus 
the  elect  are  brought  into  the  enjoyment  of  unconditional 
salvation,  by  having  their  sins  imputed  to  Christ,  and  his 
righteousness  imputed  to  them. 

But  will  it  be  said,  that  this  imputation  does  not  savingly 
take  place  without  faith,  and,  therefore,  that  faith  is  a  con- 
dition of  salvation — a  condition  without  which  the  elect 
are  not  saved — it  is  only  when  they  believe  that  Christ's 
righteousness  is  imputed  to  them?  But  look,  for  a  mo- 
ment, at  this  sheer  sophistry  and  deception — for  the  lan- 
guage certainly  does  mislead. 

The  doctrine  is,  that  the  salvation  of  these  persons — the 
elect — is  first  determined  in  the  immutable  decree  of  God ; 
then  Christ,  to  secure  it,  satisfies  and  obeys  for  tliem, 
which  gives  them  an  unconditional  title  to  life ;  and  then 
Ite  irresistibly  regenerates  them,  and  this  regeneration  ncccs- 
Harily  produces  faith.     And  now  shall  it  be  pretended  that 


t64:  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

this  faith,  which  is  itself  a  necessary  effect  of  irresistible 
regeneration,  is  a  condition  of  salvation !  It  must,  at  least, 
be  admitted,  that,  if  it  is  a  condition,  the  elect  is  entirely 
passive  in  complying  vfiih.  it;  and  so  his  salvation,  de- 
pendent as  it  is  upon  this  condition,  is  not  dependent  upon 
him,  in  any  sense — upon  any  thing  he  can  do,  or  refuse  to 
do ;  and  so,  of  course,  he  has  nothing  to  do  but  to  submit 
as  a  passive  subject  throughout;  and  this  he  cannot  help 
but  do.  To  talk  about  conditions  of  salvation  in  such  an 
arrangement — about  salvation  depending  upon  faith,  must, 
in  all  candor,  seem  like  a  nonsensical  abuse  of  language. 
Much  more  so,  to  appeal  to  the  sinner  to  believe,  in  order 
that  he  may  be  saved,  warning  him  that,  if  he  does  not,  he 
must  be  damned,  thus  seeming  to  imply  that  he  has  power 
to  perform  a  condition  by  which  he  may  be  saved,  when 
faith  is  no  more  in  his  power  than  is  the  annihilation  of  the 
universe ! 

But,  further,  if  Christ  has  absolutely  paid  the  debt  for 
his  people,  so  that  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  acquit 
them  from  punishment — if  the  punishment  has  been  in- 
flicted, and  justice  satisfied,  without  any  thing  further, 
then  it  is  manifest  nothing  more  can  be  requisite  to  free 
them  from  punishment;  and  so  their  sins  cannot  be  pun- 
ished, and  they  cannot,  therefore,  be  in  any  peril  when 
they  sin. 

v.  But  if  this  be  true,  then  it  is  certain  that  no  motive 
can  be  drawn  from  eternity  to  enforce  virtue,  or  restrain 
from  vice.  None  can  be  drawn  for  the  reprobate ;  for  his 
destiny  is  fixed ;  damned  he  must  be,  and  his  sins  cannot 
make  it  any  more  certain.  None  to  the  elect;  for  their 
destiny  is  also  fixed,  and  no  sin,  possible  to  them,  can 
unsettle  it.  Well,  say  that  I  do  not  know  which  I  am, 
elect  or  reprobate;  or  I  do  know,  it  is  all  the  same. 
Eternity,  as  it  respects  destiny,  can  bring  no  motive  to 
bear  on  m}-  conduct,   because  conduct  cannot  affect  my 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  155 

unconditional  salvation  or  damnation.  If  Chnst  died  for 
me,  no  sin  I  can  commit  can  keep  me  out  of  heaven.  If 
he  did  not  die  for  me,  nothing  that  I  can  do  can  get  me 
in ;  and  hence,  in  either  case,  my  conduct  is  entirely  unim- 
portant. Will  this  doctrine  do  to  preach?  Is  this  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible?  Is  it  consistent  with  our  views  of 
moral  government?  What  would  be  thought  of  a  man 
who  should  preach  it  ?  Yet  such  are  the  unavoidable  con-, 
sequences  of  Calvinism ! 

8.  If  this  be  true,  then  particularly  is  it  impossible  for 
the  elect,  after  they  have  once  received  the  gift  of  faith, 
ever  to  become  guilty ;  and  yet  Calvinists  believe  that  even 
the  elect,  after  regeneration,  and  pardon,  and  adoption,  may 
fall  into  grievous  sins,  nay,  must  continue  to  sin  as  long  as 
they  live.  But  now  observe  the  consequence  I  charge  here : 
if  it  is  true  that  faith  secures  the  imputation  of  both  Christ's 
suffering  and  obedience  to  the  beheving  soul,  and  if  this 
imputation  is  consequent  upon  faith — and  all  this  Calvinists 
believe — then  I  insist  that  an}^  sin,  committed  by  the  be- 
liever, cannot  either  involve  him  in  guilt  or  condemnation. 
Not  condemnation,  for  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  imputed : 
not  guilt,  for  the  imputation  of  Christ's  perfect  righteous- 
ness makes  him  completely  righteous,  and  he  cannot,  there- 
fore, have  any  guilt :  so  that  whatever  sin  the  elect  commit, 
after  they  have  been  regenerated  and  united  to  Christ  by 
faith,  does  not  involve  them  in  guilt,  because,  by  virtue  of 
their  faith,  their  sins  have  all  been  taken  from  them,  and 
imputed  to  Christ,  and  his  righteousness  has  been  imputed 
to  them,  so  that  they  cannot  be  less  than  complete  in  his 
righteousness.  Whether  they  sin,  therefore,  or  be  holy,  it 
is  all  one — whether  they  fall  away  into  grievous  delin- 
quencies, such  as  would  shame  even  the  reprobates,  as 
Calvinists  believe  they  may,  or  continue  faithful,  it  is  no 
diflference — the  question  of  their  final  salvation  is  neither 
rendered  doubtful  thereby,  nor  is  the  fact  of  their  perfect 


156  THE    ATONEMENT.  [ciIAP.  IV. 

righteousness;  for  both  are  infallibly  secured  b}'  virtue  of 
their  union  with  Christ. 

9.  Finally:  I  object  to  the  whole  Calvinian  view  of  the 
atonement  as  dishonorable  to  that  transaction,  and  its  author. 
It  renders  it  a  mere  commercial  transaction — a  thing  of 
bargain  and  sale — so  many  souls  given  for  so  much  blood — 
so  many  sins  remitted  at  so  much  price.  The  Father  agrees 
•to  give  the  Son  so  many  souls  at  so  much  price.  The  Son 
agrees  to  suffer  such  a  quantum  for  the  forgiveness  of  so 
many  sinners.  In  the  language  of  another :  **  This  hypothesis 
measures  the  atonement,  not  only  by  the  number  of  the 
elect,  but  by  the  intensity  and  degree  of  the  suffering  to  be 
endured  for  their  sin.  It  adjusts  the  dimensions  of  the 
atonement  to  a  nice  mathematical  point,  and  poises  its 
infinite  weight  of  glory  even  to  the  small  dust  of  a  balance. 
I  need  not  say  that  the  hand  which  stretches  such  lines, 
and  holds  such  scales,  must  be  a  bold  one.  Such  a  calcu- 
lation represents  the  Son  of  God  as  giving  so  much  suffering 
for  so  much  value  received  in  the  souls  given  to  him ;  and 
represents  the  Father  as  dispensing  so  many  favors  and 
blessings  for  so  much  value  received  in  obedience  and  suf- 
ferings. This  is  the  commercial  atonement,  which  sums  up 
the  worth  of  a  stupendous  moral  transaction  by  arithmetic, 
and,  with  its  little  span,  limits  what  is  infinite."  Upon  this 
view  of  the  atonement,  it  was  once  wittily  and  truthfully 
remarked :  "  God  must  have  loved  the  devil  much  more 
than  his  Son,  for  he  gave  him  the  larger  portion  of  the 
human  race  without  any  price,  charging  his  Son  full  price 
for  the  meagre  share  he  allotted  to  him." 

Further :  if  this  be  true,  I  cannot  see  any  mercy  or  grace 
in  the  Father;  and,  certainly,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  for- 
giveness. The  punishment  is  fully  inflicted,  not  a  particle 
abated,  not,  indeed,  upon  the  culprit  himself,  but  upon  his 
substitute.  But  where,  then,  is  forgiveness  ?  How  are  the 
elect  oardoned?     Has  not   their  debt   been  paid  to   the 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  157 

utmost  farthing  ?  What  remains  to  be  pardoned  ?  Is  there 
any  great  clemency  in  reUnquishing  a  claim  when  it  has 
been  fully  liquidated — paid  to  the  utmost  farthing?  Is 
such  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  ?  The  atonement,  regarded  in 
this  light,  can  be  nothing  short  of  a  stupendous  slander  of 
the  character  of  God.     So  it  seems  to  me. 

Such  are  a  part  of  the  objections  we  bring  against  the 
Calvinian  view  of  the  atonement.  It  may  be  proper,  briefly, 
to  recapitulate  here.  The  views  of  the  atonement  objected 
to  are :  First.  That  it  is  limited  to  part  of  the  race.  Second. 
All  for  whom  it  was  made  must  be  infallibly  saved.  Third. 
It  consists  in  actually  suffering  and  obeying  for  those  for 
whom  it  was  designed.     To  these  views  we  have  objected. 

1 .  The  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement  has  no  foundation 
in  the  Scriptures. 

2.  It  is  directly  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  which  teach : 
(1.)  That  Christ  died  for  all. 

(2.)  Which  contrast  the  extent  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
death  with  the  extent  of  the  evils  of  Adam's  sin. 

(3.)  W^hich  represent  those  who  are  lost  as  purchased 
by  Christ. 

(4.)  Which  offer  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  to  all. 

(5.)  Which  require  all  men  to  believe  in  and  receive 
Ohrist. 

(6.)  Which  make  the  sinner's  damnation  a  result  of  his 
•ejection  of  Christ. 

(7.)  Which  teach  that  those  who  are  finally  lost  might 
aave  been  saved. 

(8.)  Which  represent  God  as  a  being  of  universal  love. 

(9.)  As  willing  the  salvation  of  those  who  may  come 
short. 

(10.)  As  impartial,  etc.  It  will  be  perceived  in  a  moment, 
liow  all  such  Scriptures  bear  against  a  limited  atonement. 

3.  It  is  adverse  to  all  our  conceptions  of  God,  converting 
him  rather  into  a  monster  of  cruelty,  than  the  parent  of  all. 


158  THE    ATONEMENT.  [CHAP.  IV. 

4.  It  renders  it  impossible  that  a  large  part  of  the  human 
race  ever  could  be  saved. 

5.  It  renders  it  equally  impossible  for  a  large  part  of  our 
race  to  avoid  sin. 

G.  It  destroys  the  obligation  to  do  right,  and  subverts 
the  obligation  to  virtue. 

7.  It  renders  all  punishments  for  sin  unjust  and  tyrannical. 

8.  It  renders  all  general  invitations  to  all  men  to  come  to 
Christ,  insincere  and  hypocritical. 

9.  It  renders  unbelief,  on  the  part  of  the  reprobates, 
no  sin. 

10.  It  would  make  belief,  on  their  part,  a  sin. 

11.  It  renders  the  damnation  of  reprobates  a  damnation 
for  not  believing  a  lie. 

12.  It  commissions  all  ministers  to   preach  a  lie,  and 
makes  God  the  Father  and  the  Son  party  to  it. 

13.  It  renders  the  requisition   upon  all  men  to  repent 
useless  and  insincere. 

14.  It  makes  the  damnation  of  men  of  the  will  of  God, 
falsifying  his  own  word. 

15.  It  renders  the  atonement,  in  its  nature,  an  eternal  curse. 

16.  It  renders  it  certain  that   many  men  were  created 
with  an  absolute  necessity  of  damnation. 

1*7.  It  renders  the  strife  between  the  devil  and  Christ  a 
stupendous  folly. 

18.  It  is  liable  to  all  the  objections,  additionally,  that 
were  brought  against  election  and  reprobation. 

19.  It  renders  it  unnecessary  and  impossible  for  tne  elect 
to  do  any  thing  in  order  to  their  salvation. 

20.  It  makes  it  impossible  for  them  to  peril  their  salva- 
tion.    They  cannot  avoid  salvation. 

21.  It  imputes  the  obedience  and  suffering  of  Christ  to 
believers  in  a  manner  unknown  in  the  Scriptures. 

22.  It  destroys  all  the  motives,  drawn  from  eternal  des- 
tiny, to  influence  human  conduct. 


CHAP.  IV.]  THE    ATONEMENT.  l59 

23.  It  renders  it  impossible  for  the  elect  ever  to  become 
guilty,  after  regeneration. 

24.  It  dishonors  and  degrades  the  atonement  into  a  mere 
commercial  transaction — a  thing  of  barter  and  sale. 

To  this  list  of  objections  many  more  might  be  added, 
any  one  of  which  is  sufficient  alone  to  damn  the  system 
embarrassed  with  it  and  its  consequences,  to  unspeakable 
and  irreparable  infamy. 

And,  now,  may  we  again  appeal  to  our  Calvinistic  friends 
to  examine  the  grounds,  and  be  not  angry  with  us  because 
of  our  plainness  of  speech?  We  have  no  contention  but 
for  the  truth.  Let  us  look  well  to  it,  that  we  be  not  found, 
m  our  pride,  clinging  to  prejudice,  and  rejecting  truth,  and 
the  God  of  truth.  That  we  have  objected  many  things 
against  you  which  you  do  not  believe,  we  know  perfectly- 
well  ;  but  we  show  you  that  these  consequences  flow  from 
your  premises.  Now,  what  will  you  do?  You  know  the 
consequences  cannot  be  escaped.  Can  they  ?  How  ?  Will 
you,  then,  embrace  consequences  and  all?  How  can  you 
do  this  ?  But  if  not,  will  you  discard  the  premises  ?  One 
you  must  do,  or,  in  the  eyes  of  all  reasonable  men,  of  God 
himself,  be  found  guilty  of  gross,  may  I  not  say  ?  criminal 
inconsistency.  Why  cling  to  errors  so  unlovely  as  those  of 
Calvinism  ?  What  in  your  nature,  in  reason,  in  religion,  in 
God,  does  not  turn  away  from  the  horrid  compound  with 
lothing,  with  disgust? 


160  EFFECTUAL   CALLING.  [CHAP.  V. 

CHAPTER   V. 

EFFECTUAL    CALLING 

In  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  election  and  reproba- 
tion, and  of  a  limited  atonement,  and  the  unconditional 
salvation  of  all  those  for  whom  the  atonement  was  made, 
is  the  doctrine  of  effectual  calling  and  its  cognates, 
which  we  shall  now  proceed  to  notice.  Upon  this  point 
Calvinists  deliver  themselves  with  unusual  freedom  and 
plenitude.  A  selection  from  them  will  set  the  matter  in  a 
proper  light. 

"  All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and 
those  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted 
time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out  of  that 
state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grac« 
and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds,  spir- 
itually and  savingly,  to  understand  the  things  of  God ;  taking 
away  their  heai-t  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of 
flesh ;  renewing  their  wills,  and,  by  his  almighty  power,  de- 
termining them  to  that  which  is  good,  and  effectually  draw- 
ing them  to  Jesus  Christ ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely, 
being  made  willing  by  this  grace.  This  eff'ectual  call  is  of 
God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not  from  any  thing  at  all 
foreseen  in  man,  who  is  altogether  passive  therein,  until  being 
quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby 
enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace  the  grace 
ofi*ered  and  conveyed  in  it."  (Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  x, 
sec.  i  and  ii.) 

"  What  is  effectual  calling  ? 

"  Effectual  calling  is  the  work  of  God's  almighty  power 
and  grace,  whereby,  out  of  his  free  and  especial  love  to  his 
elect,  and  from  nothing  in  them  moving  him  thereunto,  he 
doth,  in  his  accepted  time,  invite  and  draw  them  unto  Jesus 
Clirist  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  savingly  enlightening  theL-* 


OHAr.  v.]  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  161 

minds,  renewing  and  powerfully  determining  their  wills,  so 
as  they,  although  in  themselves  dead  in  sin,  are  hereby 
made  wiUing  and  able  freely  to  answer  this  call,  and  to 
accept  and  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  therein. 
"  Are  the  elect  only  effectually  called  ? 
"All  the  elect,  and  they  07ili/,  are  effectually  called, 
although  others  may  be,  and  often  are,  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  have  common  operations  of 
the  Spirit,  who,  for  their  willful  neglect  and  contempt  of  the 
grace  offered  to  them,  being  justly  left  in  their  unbelief,  do 
never  truly  come  to  Jesus  Christ."  (Larger  Catechism, 
ques.  67  and  08.) 

The  expositor  of  the  Confession,  in  his  comments  upon 
the  sections  above,  remarks,  "  That  in  this  calling  the  ope- 
rations of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  irrevocable."  We  admit  that 
there  are  common  operations  of  the  Spirit,  which  do  not 
issue  in'the  conversion  of  the  sinner;  but  we  maintain  that 
the  special  operations  of  the  Spirit  overcome  all  opposition, 
and  effectually  determine  the  sinner  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ 
as  he  is  offered  in  the  Gospel.  If  the  special  operations  of 
the  Spirit  were  not  invincible,  but  might  be  effectually  re- 
sisted, then  it  would  be  uncertain  whether  any  would  believe 
or  not,  and  consequently  possible,  that  all  which  Christ  had 
done  and  suffered  in  the  work  of  redemption  might  have 
been  done  and  suffered  in  vain. 

"That  in  this  calling  the  sinner  is  altogether  passive, 
until  he  is  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 
(P.  143.) 

"  We  are  made  partakers  of  the  benefits  which  Christ 
hath  procured,  by  the  application  of  them  to  us,  which  is 
the  Avork  especially  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost." 

*'  Redemption  is  certainly  applied,  and  effectually  commu- 
nicated, to  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  it." 
(Larger  Catechism,  ques.  58  and  59.) 

«'Iii    retjeneration    we    are    passive,    and    receive    from 
14 


162  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  [cHAP.  V, 

God:  it  is  an  irresistible,  or,  rather,  an  invincible  work," 
(Buck.) 

"  The  power  of  God,  exerted  in  regeneration  and  conver- 
sion of  sinners,  is  invincible.  Those  who  speak  of  irresist- 
ible grace,  mean  that  it  cannot  finally  be  resisted;  that  it 
will  overcome  all  the  efforts  of  corrupt  nature  to  counteract 
its  design;  and  that  it  will  ultimately  render  sinners  obe- 
dient to  the  faith.  Man  must  submit  in  the  end  to  the 
power  of  God;  and  this  will  be  more  evident  if  we  con- 
sider that  his  power  is  not  only  sufficient  to  compel  the 
most  refractory  to  yield,  although  with  the  greatest  reluct- 
ance, but  that  it  can  take  away  the  spirit  of  opposition, 
and  so  influence  the  hearts  of  men,  that  this  submission 
shall  be  voluntary.  Were  we  to  say  that  the  grace  of  God 
is  not  invincible,  we  should  he  under  the  necessity  of  adopting 
tJie  opinion,  which  ive  have  already  proved  to  be  unscriptural, 
that  there  is  in  man  a  poiver  to  comply  or  not  to  comply  with 
the  call  of  the  Gospel.  We  should  take  the  work  of  con- 
■sersion  out  of  the  hand  of  God,  and  commit  it  to  man 
himself.  After  God  had  done  all  that  he  could  do  for  our 
salvation,  it  would  depend  upon  ourselves  whether  the 
intended  effect  should  follow."     (Dick.) 

**  According  to  the  Scriptures,  regeneration  is  a  change, 
effected  by  Divine  grace,  in  the  state  of  the  soul — the  super- 
natural renovation  of  its  faculties — the  infusion  of  a  principle 
of  spiritual  life.  It  is  evident  that  if  this  is  a  just  defini- 
tion, the  sinner  is  passive."     (lb.) 

"  In  opposition  to  all  the  modifications  of  error  upon  this 
point,  we  affirm  that  conversion  is  effected  by  the  almighty 
grace  of  God ;  that,  although  man  does  not  concur  in  it,  he 
is,  in  the  first  instance,  passive,  and  his  concurrence  is  the 
consequence  of  supernatural  power  communicated  to  him ; 
and  that  he  does  not  come  to  God  till  he  is  effectually 
called,  by  the  operation  of   the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  soul." 

(lb.) 


(MIA p.  V.J  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  163 

"The  first  immediate  fruit  of  eternal  election,  and  the 
principal  act  of  God,  by  which  appointed  salvation  is 
applied,  is  effectual  calling.  And  this  calling  is  that  act 
by  which  those  who  are  chosen  by  God,  and  redeemed 
by  Christ,  are  sweetly  invited  and  effectually  brought  from 
a  state  of  sin  to  a  state  of  communion  with  God  in  Christ, 
both  externally  and  internally."  (Witsius,  book  iii,  chap,  v, 
sec.  i.) 

"But  this  call  is  given  partly  externally,  by  a  persuasive 
power  called  moral  suasion;  partly  internally,  by  a  real, 
supernatm-al  efficacy,  which  changes  the  heart.  The  ex- 
ternal call  is,  in  some  measure,  published  by  the  word 
of  nature;  but  more  fully  by  that  of  supernatural  revela- 
tion, without  which  every  word  of  nature  would  be  insuffi- 
cient and  ineffectual.  The  internal  comes  from  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  working  inwardly  on  the  heart;  and 
without  this,  every  external,  revealed  word,  though  objec- 
tively very  sufficient,  as  it  clearly  discovers  every  thing  to 
be  known,  believed,  and  done,  yet  is  subjectively  ineffectual, 
nor  will  ever  bring  any  person  to  the  communion  of  Christ." 
(lb.,  sec.  vii.) 

"By  that  same  word,  whereby  the  elect  are  called  to 
communion  with  God  and  his  Christ,  they  are  also  regen- 
erated to  a  far  more  excellent  life."     (lb.,  chap,  iv,  sec.  i.) 

"  Ilegeneration  is  that  supernatural  act  of  God  whereby 
a  new  and  divine  life  is  infused  into  the  elect  person  spirit- 
ually dead,  and  that  from  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the 
word  of  God,  made  fruitful  by  the  infinite  power  of  the 
Spirit."     (lb.,  sec.  iv.) 

"If  we  consider  this  first  principle  of  life,  there  is  not 
the  least  doubt  but  regeneration  is  accomplished  in  a  mo- 
ment ;  for  there  is  no  delay  in  the  transition  from  death  to 
life.  No  person  can  be  regenerated  so  long  as  he  is  in  the 
state  of  spiritual  death ;  but  in  the  instant  he  is,  he  begins 
to  live — he  is  born  again.     Wherefore,  no  intermediate  stato 


IC4  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  [cHAP.  V. 

between  the  regenerate  and  unregenerate  can  be  imagined^ 
so  much  as  in  thought."     (lb.,  sec.  viii.) 

"  Hence,  it  appears,  there  are  no  preparations  antecedent 
to  the  first  beginning  of  regeneration;  because,  previous  to 
tliat,  nothing  but  mere  death,  in  the  highest  degree,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  person  to  be  regenerated.  And,  indeed, 
the  Scripture  represents  man's  conversion  by  such  simih- 
tudes  as  show  that  all  preparations  are  entirely  excluded." 
(lb.,  chap,  vi,  sec.  ix.) 

"You  will  say,  then,  are  there  no  preparatory  disposi- 
tions to  the  first  regeneration?  I  confessedly  answer, 
there  are  none — agree  with  Fulgentius.  With  respect  to 
the  birth  of  a  child,  the  work  of  God  is  previous  to  any 
will  of  the  person  that  comes  into  the  world;  so  in  the 
spiritual  birth,  whereby  we  begin  to  put  oflf  the  old  man." 
(lb.,  sec.  xiii.) 

"And  this  is  that  regeneration  which  is  so  much  de- 
clared in  the  Scriptures — a  new  creation — a  resurrectioD 
from  the  dead — a  giving  of  life,  which  God,  without  us, 
worketh  in  us.  And  this  is  by  no  means  effected  by  the 
doctrine  alone  sounding  without,  by  moral  suasion,  or  by 
such  a  mode  of  working,  that,  after  the  operation  of  God,  it 
should  remain  in  the  power  of  man  to  he  regenerated  or  not 
regenerated,  converted  or  not  converted,  but  is  manifestly  an 
operation  supernatural,  at  the  same  time  most  powerful, 
and  most  sweet,  wonderful,  secret,  and  infallible  in  its 
power,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  not  less  than  or  in- 
ferior to  creation  or  the  resurrection  of  the  dead;  so  that 
all  those,  in  whose  hearts  God  works  in  this  admirable 
manner,  are  certainly,  infallibly,  and  efficaciously  regen- 
erated, and,  in  fact,  believe.  And  thus  their  will,  being 
now  renewed,  is  not  only  influenced  and  moved  by  God, 
but,  being  acted  on  by  God,  itself  acts  and  moves." 
(Synod  of  Dort,  chap,  iii,  sec.  xii.) 

"  The  power  of  God  exerted  in  regeneration  is  invincible. 


CEIAP.  v.]  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  165 

We  do  not  deny  that  the  grace  of  God  may  be  re- 
sisted, not  only  by  the  finally  impenitent,  but  by  those 
who  ultimately  yield  to  it;  but,  in  the  end,  man  must 
yield  to  the  power  of  divine  grace;  because  his  power  is 
sufficient  to  subdue  the  most  stubborn  will,  to  remove  all 
opposition,  and  to  influence  the  hearts  of  men,  that  they, 
at  last,  yield  voluntary  submission,  without  compulsion  or 
force  exerted  upon  their  minds.  In  regeneration,  in  the 
moment  of  the  act,  the  soul  is  passive."     (HelfFenstein.) 

"As  the  child  is  passive  in  generation,  so  is  the  child  of 
God  in  regeneration."     (Bosten.) 

"Regeneration  is  an  irresistible,  or,  rather,  an  invincible 
work  of  grace."  (Buck's  Theological  Dictionary — Regen- 
eration.) 

"  In  regeneration  we  are  passive,  and  receive  from  God." 

(lb) 

Without  multiplying  authorities,  for  the  above  are  suffi- 
cient for  all  our  purposes,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  deduce 
a  statement  of  doctrine,  and  then  set  forth  our  objections. 

And,  from  the  above,  we  derive  as  the  faith  of  Cahnn- 
ists  upon  the  subjects  of  effectual  calling,  irresistible  grace, 
and  regeneration — (these  subjects  were  blended,  because, 
in  the  Calvinian  system,  they  constitute  essentially  but  one 
branch  of  doctrine,  as  the  above  quotations  abundantly 
show.  Whatever  may  be  their  shades  of  difference  and 
divers  ramifications,  they  spring  from  one  identical  principle 
and  its  cognates — to  all  intents  and  purposes  they  are 
the  same :) 

1.  That,  up  to  the  moment  of  effectual  calling — regen- 
eration— a  man  cannot  cease  from  sin;  he  has  not  the 
power  to  do  so. 

2.  None  but  the  elect  ever  are  effectually  called — re- 
generated. 

3.  When  the  elect  are  effectually  called,  they  cannot 
help  but  yield ;  they  have  no  power  to  resist. 


166  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  [cHAP.  V. 

4.  This  effectual  call  is  sent  upon  the  elect  without  any 
conditions  or  preparation  on  their  part. 

Now,  to  the  doctrine  thus  summed  up — and  no  Calvinisi 
dare  dispute  any  point  included  in  it — I  shall  proceed  to 
alledge  a  number  of  objections;  and  it  will  be  with  the 
good  sense  and  candor  of  my  readers,  to  decide  whether 
they  constitute  sufficient  reasons  for  discarding  the  doctrine. 

1.  I  object  to  this  doctrine,  that  it  is  anti-scriptural, 
nowhere  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  and  contradictory  to 
much  that  is  therein  tauofht:  as  that  salvation  is  condi- 
tional — that  all  may  seek  and  fiiid  —that  they  are  criminal 
who  do  not  seek — that  many  are  lost  who  might  have  been 
saved — that  the  Spirit  may  be  resisted — that  repentance 
and  faith  precede  regeneration — indeed,  the  doctrine  is  in 
palpable  conflict  with  the  whole  tenor  of  revelation.  This 
is  one  objection. 

2.  But,  further,  I  object,  that  if  regeneration  is  the  work 
of  irresistible  grace,  wrought  without  previous  conditions, 
then  they  who  are  not  regenerated,  are  not  to  be  condemned 
for  remaining  unregenerate.  It  is  attributable  to  no  fault 
in  them,  and  so  cannot  render  them  blameworthy,  because 
it  is  a  matter  with  which  they  have  nothing  whatever  to  do. 
It  is  God's  work,  and  not  theirs  in  any  sense;  they  are 
passive  entirely,  from  beginning  to  end;  and  so,  if  there  be 
any  wrong  in  their  remaining  unregenerate,  the  wrong  is 
not  in  them,  because  it  is  not  by  their  consent. 

But  if  it  be  said  the  wrong  is  not  in  their  remaining 
unregenerate,  but  in  their  being  so  in  the  first  instance, 
then,  I  reply,  neither  are  they  to  blame  for  this,  because  it, 
also,  was  entirely  without  their  consent.  They  were  born 
corrupt,  and  so  cannot  be  guilty  for  this ;  they  cannot  escape 
from  corruption,  and  so  are  not  guilty  for  remaining  in  it : 
and,  therefore,  they  have  no  guilt  whatever  because  of  their 
corruption.  From  this  reasoning  there  is  no  escape,  but  an 
assumption  that  men  are  absolutely  and  damnably  guilty 


CHAP,  v.]  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.         *  167 

for  that  over  which  they  have  not  now,  and  never  did  have, 
any  control.  Beheve  this  who  can!  but  let  my  tongue 
cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth  before  I  can  so  calumniate 
the  adorable  Jehovah ! 

3.  If  the  doctrine  be  true,  men  are  not  to  be  condemned 
for  actual  sin,  unless  they  are  condemnable  for  not  avoiding 
that  which  they  never  had  power  to  avoid.  For  they  were 
brought  into  the  world  with  a  corrupt  nature,  without  any 
consent  of  theirs,  unless  they  consented  before  they  had  an 
existence;  and  being  thus  born,  they  never  could  cease 
from  sin  without  regeneration ;  and  they  never  had  power 
to  promote  or  secure  regeneration,  and  so  are  not  to  be 
condemned  for  the  sins  they  commit  prior  to  regeneration, 
unless  they  are  to  be  condemned  for  an  absolute  impossibility. 

4.  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  then  they  who  are  not  regen- 
erate not  only  are  not  to  be  condemned  for  not  being 
regenerate,  and  for  actual  sins  committed  prior  to  regenera- 
tion, but,  also,  they  cannot  be  required  to  be  holy  in  heart 
or  in  life,  unless  it  is  assumed  that  men  may  justly  be 
required  to  do  what  they  never  had,  and  have  not,  the 
power  to  do.  If  they  do  not  do  right,  they  violate  no 
requirement,  but  a  requirement  to  perform  an  impossibility, 
which  is  the  requirement  of  an  abhorrent  despot,  and  not 
of  the  glorious  Jehovah. 

5.  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  there  can  be  no  punishment 
for  either  depravity  or  sin,  unless  men  are  punishable  for 
not  performing  impossibilities.  If  men  are  finally  punished 
with  eternal  torments,  then  they  are  punished  without  any 
cause  on  their  part,  but  simply  that  they  did  not  do  what  it 
was  eternally  impossible  for  them  to  do.  They  are  punished 
for  impenitence  and  unbelief;  but  impenitence  and  unbelief - 
are  the  unavoidable  fruit  of  a  corrupt  nature;  from  this 
corruption  there  is  no  deliverance  but  by  regeneration; 
man  has  no  power  to  regenerate  himself,  and  he  can  do 


168  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  [cHAP.  V 

notliing  to  induce  God  to  regenerate  him :  he  is,  therefore, 
damned  in  hell  for  ever,  for  that  over  which  he  had  no 
more  control  than  the  angel  Gabriel.  Think  of  hell !  tlien 
think  of  such  a  fate !  Can  God  be  chargeable  with  such  a 
government  and  conduct  as  this? 

6.  If  the  doctrine  be  true,  then  men  cannot  be  required 
to  do  any  thing  to  promote  their  salvation ;  for  their  salva- 
tion is  not  susceptible  of  being  promoted,  as  it  is  uncon- 
ditional. In  salvation  man  is  not  a  co-agent,  but  a  mere 
passive  subject.  Until  the  work  is  commenced  by  irresistible 
regeneration,  he  can  do  nothing  but  sin.  When  regenera- 
tion takes  place,  all  the  rest  follows  as  a  necessary  effect  or 
unavoidable  fruit. 

v.  They  cannot,  with  any  propriet}^  be  invited  or  exhorted 
to  repent  and  seek  God;  for  the  thing  is  impossible;  and 
to  invite  or  exhort  men  to  perform  an  impossibility,  is  tri- 
fling— is  nonsense.  A  Calvinistic  minister,  who  believes  that 
up  to  the  moment  of  regeneration  a  man  cannot  repent  and 
turn  to  God — and  who,  also,  believes  that  regeneration  is  a 
gift  of  God  without  conditions,  and,  also,  that  when  regen- 
eration is  given,  men  must  repent — and  yet  urges,  and  in- 
vites, and  implores  men  to  repent  and  turn  to  God,  must  be 
accounted  guilty  of  the  strangest  inconsistency,  to  say  the 
least  of  it. 

8.  They  cannot,  with  any  propriety,  be  required  to  do 
one  thing  rather  than  another,  before  regeneration,  only  as 
one  sin  is  preferable  to  another ;  for  whatever  they  do  must 
be  sinful.  Nothing  that  a  man  can  do  before  regeneration 
is  good ;  it  is  all  sin.  If  he  prays  for  the  forgiveness  of  his 
sins,  it  only  increases  them.  If  he  observes  the  Sabbath, 
if  he  reads  the  Scriptures,  if  he  goes  to  the  house  of  God, 
if  he  fasts,  and  mourns,  and  humbles  himself  "before  God,  it 
is  all  sin.  But,  it  is  said,  a  man  cannot  do  these  things  until 
regenerated:  but  that  is  precisely  my  proposition;  he  can 


CHAP,  v.]  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  160 

do  nothing  but  sin,  and  cannot  turn  aAvay  from  it  any  more 
than  he  can  create  a  universe — cannot  even  try.  Why, 
(hen,  ask  him  or  labor  with  him  upon  the  subject? 

9.  If  this  be  true,  then  it  must  be  that  God  prefers  that 
the  elect  should  commit  a  great  deal  of  sin  before  they  are 
regenerated.  For  their  regeneration  is  his  work;  he  can 
do  it  one  time  as  well  as  another;  for  it  is  by  irresistible 
grace,  and  against  the  sinner's  disposition,  whenever  it  is 
done ;  and  that  he  leaves  them  unregenerate  a  long  term  of 
years,  must  be  because,  on  the  whole,  he  prefers  that  during 
this  period  they  should  be  unregenerate  and  sinful,  rather 
than  regenerafe  and  holy. 

10.  Yea,  more:  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  God  must  prefer 
all  the  impenitence,  and  unbelief,  and  sin,  that  is  in  the 
world.  For  if  regeneration  is  his  work  alone,  independ- 
ent of  all  conditions,  and  if  regeneration  would  produce 
hohness,  then  the  reason  why  the  world  remains  unre- 
generate and  unholy  must  be,  that,  on  the  whole,  God 
prefers  it.  He  prefers  that  it  should  be  as  it  is,  or  he  would 
make  it  otherwise.  There  is  no  other  reason  but  his  prefer- 
ence; for  a  sufficient  atonement  has  been  made  to  remove 
all  impediments  out  of  the  way,  so  far  as  Divine  justice  is 
concerned;  and  in  the  creature  there  is  nothing  but  what 
might  be  overcome  by  irresistible  grace.  That  such  grace 
is  not  exerted,  is  of  the  good  pleasure  of  God  alone ;  and 
this  good  pleasure  must  arise  from  the  fact,  that,  in  view 
of  all  things,  God  prefers  the  final  impenitence  and  unhoh 
ness  of  some  persons  to  their  hohness,  and  their  eternal 
d  )struction  to  their  everlasting  salvation. 

11.  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  man  is  not  a  free  agent  in 
consenting  to  salvation,  nor  yet  in  refusing  to  consent ;  be- 
cause in  the  former  case  the  will  is  in-esistibly  coerced  to  its 
choice ;  in  the  latter  it  has  no  ability  to  make  a  contrary 
election.  In  both  cases  it  acts  under  an  irresistible  agency. 
For  if  the  soul,  under  the  influence  of  the  eflfectual  call 

15 


170  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  [CHAP.  V. 

retains  its  freedom,  it  has  power  to  resist;  but  then  the  call 
would  not  be  irresistible ;  but  if  it  has  no  power  to  resist, 
but  must  necessarily  choose,  then  it  is  not  free.  And  if 
without  the  effectual  call  it  might  choose  life,  then  without 
the  effectual  call  it  might  be  saved;  but  if  it  has  not  the 
power,  then  it  is  not  free. 

12.  I  object  to  this  doctrine,  because  it  antagonizes  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith,  and  makes  faith  an  involuntary 
exercise — these  both.  Is  not  regeneration  salvation  from 
depravity  ?  and  is  it  not  the  work  of  salvation  commenced 
m  the  soul  ?  If  so,  and  if  regeneration  precedes  faith,  is  it 
not  inevitable  that  faith  is  not  a  condition  fo  salvation  to 
this  extent?  And  if  faith  is  a  necessary  effect  of  regen- 
eration, can  it  be  a  voluntary  exercise  ?  And  if  it  is  not  a 
voluntary  exercise,  can  it,  with  any  propriety,  be  called  a 
(iondition  of  any  thing  which  follows  after  it?  And,  par- 
ticularly, can  men  be  exhorted  to  its  exercise,  as  though  it 
were  a  condition  to  which  they  are  competent  ? 

Can  a  regenerate  person  be  lost?  If  not,  regeneration 
itself  infallibly  secures  salvation,  with  all  that  is  included 
therein.  And  if  it  does  secure  salvation,  how  can  any  thing 
which  comes  after  it  be  called  a  condition  of  salvation? 
Must  not  every  thing  following  after  rather  be  said  to  be 
included  in  salvation? 

13.  I  object  to  this  doctrine,  further,  that  it  not  only 
makes  salvation  an  involuntary  and  unconditional  work,  but 
it  also  does  away  with  repentance  entirely.  Look  at  it 
soberly,  and  see  if  it  is  not  a  shocking  misrepresentation, 
not  only  of  the  particular  teachings  and  general  tone  of  the 
Bible,  but,  also,  of  all  experience.  There  is  a  man  who,  up 
to  this  moment,  is  a  sinner ;  and  now,  without  any  convic- 
tion or  turning  of  heart  to  God,  or  any  use  of  means — while 
his  heart  is  proud,  and  stubborn,  and  sinful  as  ever,  he  is 
in  one  instant,  by  irresistible  grace,  born  of  God;  in  the 
i.'j.me  instant  he  is  justifi-d;  but  preceding  his  justification 


JHAP.  v.]  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  171 

and  succeeding  his  regeneration,  he  exercises  faith  and 
repentance !  Now,  I  ask,  in  the  name  of  reason  and 
rehgion,  is  this  so?  Will  the  world  furnish  one  solitary 
witness  to  an  experience  of  this  kind  ? 

14,  According  to  this  doctrine,  a  Christian  is  no  more  to 
be  esteemed  for  his  virtues,  than  a  sinner  for  his  sins ;  and 
the  latter  is  no  more  to  be  censured  than  the  former; 
because  they  are  both  passive,  and  only  passive,  with 
respect  alike  to  their  sins  and  virtues:  the  only  difference 
between  them  is  produced  by  irresistible  fate.  Indeed,  the 
whole  system  of  Calvinism,  in  its  peculiar  tenets,  inevitably 
destroys  both  the  accountability  of  man,  and  the  distinc- 
tions between  vice  and  virtue.  If  one  man  is  irresistibly 
and  invincibly  drawn  to  a  holy  life,  and  another  man  is 
equally  irresistibly  drawn  to  an  unholy  and  sinful  conduct, 
and  this  without  any  thing  under  their  control,  it  must  be 
manifest,  that,  though  there  is  a  difference,  it  may  be  both 
in  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  individuals ;  yet  they 
are  neither  commendable  nor  censurable,  or,  indeed,  in  any 
sense  responsible  for  the  difference. 

Yea,  further,  does  not  Calvinism  also  teach,  not  only 
that  men  are  entirely  passive  in  their  states  and  actions, 
but  that,  in  their  sins  as  much  as  in  their  most  holy  exer- 
cises, they  actually  perform  the  will  of  God.  The  will  of 
God,  according  to  their  teaching,  cannot  in  any  thing  be 
frustrated.  Nothing  comes  to  pass  but  that  he  willed  it. 
The  devil  does  his  will  as  much  as  the  archangel.  Where 
is  the  difference?  In  what  is  the  one  more  appro vable  or 
censurable  than  the  other?  Is  this  one  to  be  damned? 
Why  ?  Did  he  not  do  the  will  of  God  ?  Did  he  do  any 
thing,  more  or  less,  than,  in  the  will  of  God,  was  purposed 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world?  Is  he  damned  for 
doing  the  will  of  God  !  He  is  damned  for  sinning ;  but 
that  very  sin  was  the  will  of  God?  God  willed  him  to 
do,  he  but  complied — accomplished  what  his  Maker  wished 


1Y2  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  [CHAP.  '^. 

Ilim  to  do — what  it  was  not  only  impossible  he  should 
avoid,  but  what,  if  he  had  avoided,  would  have  been  a 
breach  of  his  Maker's  will — the  damnable  sin !  0,  sir,  what 
dreadful  work  this  kind  of  stuff  makes  with  the  character 
and  reputation  of  God !  Do  you  find  no  difficulties  upon 
these  points?  Then  must  you  be  blind  indeed!  Consult 
your  own  experience — interrogate  your  consciousness ;  it 
will  teach  you  better.  You  will  find,  beyond  any  power  to 
convince  you  to  the  contrarj^,  that  you  believe  that  a  change 
in  your  character  and  life  was  not  wrought  without  your 
consent — that  your  consent  was  not  produced  by  irresistible 
power.  You  will  find  that  your  recollection  of  repentance 
is,  that  you  r(  pented  long  and  deeply,  with  tears  and 
sorrow,  before  you  found  forgiveness — that  this  repentance 
was  attended  with  a  distressing  sense  of  both  unpurged 
corruption  and  unremoved  condemnation.  If  any  man  had 
asked  you,  then,  whether  your  vile  nature  was  changed — 
regenerated — or  not,  what  would  have  been  your  answer? 
That  you  were  not  only  unpardoned,  but  vile !  A  change 
indeed  had  been  wrought — but  not  the  change  of  nature — 
making  you  a  child  of  God.  Such  is  the  testimony  of  your 
experience:  every  step  is  fresh  in  your  memory;  you  can 
never  forget  it.  By  some  instrument,  it  matters  not  what, 
where,  or  when,  your  mind  was  arrested:  truth  flashed 
upon  your  guilty  conscience ;  you  saAV  and  admitted  it.  A 
simple  conviction  of  your  utter  sinfulness  was  the  result. 
You  pondered  what  to  do.  A  struggle,  and  you  deter- 
mined to  seek  for  life.  What  next?  You  now  began 
seriously  to  reflect — you  betook  yourself  to  the  Bible,  or 
to  some  religious  friend — you  prayed.  Your  sense  of  guilt 
and  wretchedness  increased.  How  bitter  now  was  the 
mingled  cup  of  your  sorrow !  You  repented  before  God, 
did  you  not  ?  You  struggled  on,  through  doubts  and  fears. 
now  ready  to  lay  hold  by  faith,  then  sinking  into  deej) 
despair!     At  last,  in  the  utmost  extremity,  forgetting  all, 


CilAP.  V.J  EFFECTUAL    CALLING.  1*73 

by  a  mighty  exertion,  you  embraced  the  atoning  sacrifice — 
you  beheved.  Do  you  not  recollect  it?  Was  it  not  so? 
Then  came  rest!  Your  nature  was  changed.  You  saw 
it — you  felt  it — you  realized  it;  no  earthly  power  could 
convince  you  to  the  contrary  ;  believing  you  were  a  new 
man  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  had  now  no  condemnation.  I 
appeal  to  every  Christian,  wa-s  it  not  so?  Your  experi- 
ence, then,  as  well  as  God's  word,  and  the  voice  of  reason, 
are  against  the  dogma  we  here  oppose. 

Much  more  might  be  said,  to  show  the  danger  of  the 
error  under  examination — how  it  destroys  all  sense  of  obli- 
gation— how  it  contents  the  sinner  in  his  sins — how  it 
neutralizes  all  efifort — ^how  it  shields  the  conscience  from  all 
appeals  and  exhortations ;  but  all  this  must  be  present  to 
the  reflecting  and  considerate  reader.  In  view  of  them,  let 
him  "hesitate ;  nay,  let  him  promptly  throw  from  him  an  un- 
supported dogma,  fraught  with  such  deadly  influences.  Let 
no  cherished  prejudices — no  long  attachments,  cause  him 
to  deal  compassionately  with  the  dangerous  delusion.  It 
deserves  no  mercy ;  let  it  find  none.  Let  the  mind  always 
contemplate  it  naked ;  its  deformities  will  make  it  sufficiently 
detestable.  It  is  only  when  it  is  cloaked  and  masked  that 
it  has  attractions;  when  seen  in  its  native  and  real  char- 
acter, with  its  consorts  and  relatives,  it  Avill  be  sufficiently 
hideous ;  no  mind  will  admit  it.  It  will  stand,  without,  with 
its  kindred  errors,  equally  execrated  by  reason  and  religion, 
by  the  vohs  of  God,  and  the  instinct  of  mankind.  Dear 
reader;  may  we  be  guided  by  the  infinite  Spirit  into  all 
truth ! 


174  rERSEVERANCE.  [CHAP.  VI. 

CHAPTER   VI. 

PERSEVERANCE. 

In  this  chapter  we  shall  treat  of  the  perseverance  of 
the  saints — a  subject  of  scarcely  inferior  importance  to 
those  already  considered.  It  falls  in  at  this  point  natu- 
rally, and  forms  an  indispensable  part  of  this  most  won- 
derful system;  for,  certainly,  whatever  else  may  be  said 
of  Calvinism,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  is  a  complete 
S3'Stem.  Starting  out  with  the  radical  principle,  that  all 
events  are  jQxed  by  eternal  decree,  it  infers  that  those  who 
will  be  finally  saved  must  be  so  decreed  to  salvation — then 
the  means  must  be  fixed — then  they  must  operate  infal- 
libly— then  they  must  accomplish  the  end ;  the  elect  must 
be  kept  to  the  end. 

"  They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  his  Beloved,  efi'ect- 
ually  called,  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can  neither  totally 
nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace,  but  shall  cer- 
tainly persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved. 

"This  perseverance  of  the  saints  depends  not  upon  their 
own  free  will,  but  upon  the  immutability  of  the  decree  of 
election,  flowing  from  the  free  and  unchangeable  love  of 
God  the  Father,  upon  the  efficacy  of  the  merits  and  inter- 
cession of  Jesus  Christ,  the  abiding  of  the  Spirit  and  of 
the  seed  of  God  within  them,  and  the  nature  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace;  from  all  which  ariseth,  also,  the  certainty 
and  infallibility  thereof. 

"Nevertheless,  they  may,  through  the  temptation  of 
Satan  and  the  world,  the  pre  valency  of  corruption  re- 
maininsr  in  them,  and  the  nej^lect  of  the  means  of  their 
preservation,  fall  into  grievous  sins,  and  for  a  time  con- 
tinue therein;  whereby  they  incur  God's  displeasure,  and 
grieve  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  come  to  be  deprived  of  some 
measure  of  their  graces  and  comforts,  have  their  hearts 


CHAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  iVo 

hardened,  and  their  consciences  wounded,  hurt  and  scan- 
dahze  others,  and  bring  temporal  judgments  upon  them- 
selves."    (Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xvii,  sec.  i-iii.) 

"  The  perseverance  of  the  saints  is  one  of  the  articles  by 
whicli  the  creed  of  the  followers  of  Calvin  is  distinguished 
from  that  of  the  followers  of  Arminius.  The  latter  hold, 
that  true  believers  may  fall  into  sins  inconsistent  with  a 
state  of  grace,  and  may  continue  in  apostasy  to  the  end 
of  life;  and,  consequently,  may  finally  fall  into  perdition. 
In  opposition  to  this  tenet,  our  Confession  affirms,  that  true 
believers  can  neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from 
a  state  of  grace,  but  shall  certainly  persevere  therein  tc 
the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved.  We  affirm,  that  the  total 
apostasy  of  believers  is  impossible,  not  in  the  nature  of 
things,  but  by  the  Divine  constitution;  and,  consequently, 
that  no  man,  who  has  been  once  received  into  the  Divine 
favor,  can  be  ultimately  deprived  of  salvation."  (Expositor 
of  the  Confession,  p.  198,) 

"As  the  grace  of  God,  which  is  conceived  to  derive  its 
efficacy  from  his  power  of  fulfilling  his  purpose  in  those 
for  whom  it  is  destined,  overcomes  all  the  opposition  with 
which  it  is  at  first  received,  so  it  continues  to  be  exerted 
amidst  all  the  frailty  and  corruption  which  adhere  to 
human  nature  in  a  present  state.  It  is  not  exerted  to 
such  a  degree  as  to  preserve  any  man  from  every  kind 
of  sin ;  for  God  is  pleased  to  teach  Christians  humility,  by 
keeping  up  the  remembrance  of  that  state  out  of  which 
they  were  delivered,  and  to  quicken  their  aspirations  after 
higher  degrees  of  goodness,  by  lea\ang  them  to  struggle 
frith  temptation,  and  to  feel  manifold  infirmities.  But, 
although  no  man  is  enabled,  in  this  life,  to  attain  to  per- 
fection, the  grace  of  God  preserves  those  to  whom  it  is 
given  from  drawing  back  to  perdition.  The  doctrine  of 
the  perseverance  of  the  saints  flows  necessarily  from  that 
decree    by   which    they   were,   from    eternity,    chosen    to 


176  PERSEVERANCE.  [ciIAP.  VI. 

salvation,  and  from  the  manner  in  which,  according  to  the 
Calvinistic  system,  the  decree  was  executed;  and  all  tjie 
principles  of  the  system  must  be  renounced,  before  we  can 
believe  that  any  of  those  for  whom  Christ  died,  and  who, 
consequently,  became  partakers  of  his  grace,  can  fall  from 
that  grace,  either  finally — by  which  is  meant,  they  shall 
not,  in  the  end,  be  saved—or  totally — by  which  is  meant, 
that  they  shall,  at  any  period  of  their  lives,  commit  sins  so 
heinous  and  presumptuous,  and  persist  in  them  so  obsti- 
nately, as,  at  that  period,  to  forfeit  entirely  the  Divine 
favor."     (Hill,  p.  640.) 

"  Upon  this  subject  professed  Christians  are  divided  in 
sentiment,  as,  indeed,  they  are  upon  every  article  of  faith. 
The  doctrine  of  our  Church,  in  which  I  believe  all  the 
reformed  Churches  concurred,  is  expressed  in  the  following 
words:  'They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  the  Beloved, 
effectually  called,  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can  neither 
totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace,  but 
shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally 
saved.'"     (Dick,  vol.  ii,  p.  283.) 

"We  assert,  then,  that  true  believers  cannot  fall  totally 
or  finally  from  grace.  It  may  seem  that  the  use  of  both 
these  words  is  unnecessary;  because^  if  they  cannot  fall 
totally,  it  follows  that  they  cannot  fall  finally;  but  thej 
are  intended  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  Arminians,  whc 
afiirm,  that  although  a  saint  may  fall  totally  from  grace, 
he  may  be  restored  by  repentance ;  but,  since  this  is  uncer- 
tain, and  does  not  always  take  place,  he  may,  also,  fall 
finally,  and  die  in  his  sins.  Now  we  aflirm,  that  the  total 
apostasy  of  believers  is  impossible,  not  in  the  nature  of 
thmgs,  but  by  the  Divine  constitution;  and,  consequently, 
that  no  man,  who  has  been  once  received  into  the  Divine 
favor,  can  be  ultimately  deprived  of  salvation."  (lb., 
vol.  ii,  p.  284.) 

"  God  doth  continue  to  forgive  the  sins  of  those  who  are 


CHAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  177 

justified ;  and,  although  they  can  never  fall  from  the  state 
of  justification,  yet  they  may,  by  their  sins,  fall  under  God's 
fatherly  displeasure,  and  not  have  the  light  of  his  counte- 
nance restored  unto  them  until  they  humble  themselves, 
confess  their  sins,  beg  pardon,  and  renew  their  faith  and 
repentance."     (Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xii,  sec.  5.) 

"As  justification  is  an  act  completed  at  once,  so  those 
who  are  justified  cannot  come  into  condemnation.  The 
sins  which  they  afterward  commit,  cannot  revoke  the  pardon 
which  God  has  graciously  given  them ;  but  they  may  sub- 
ject them  to  his  fatherly  displeasure  and  temporary  chastise- 
ment. Here  we  must  revert  to  the  well-known  distinction 
between  judicial  and  fatherly  forgiveness.  Though  God, 
in  the  capacity  of  a  judge^  pardons  all  the  sins  of  believers 
in  the  most  free  and  unconditional  manner,  in  the  day  of 
their  justification,  yet  that  forgiveness,  which,  as  a  father, 
he  bestows  upon  his  justified  and  adopted  children,  is  not 
in  general  vouchsafed,  without  suitable  preparation  on  their 
part  for  receiving  and  improving  the  privilege  [!!]  "  (Ex- 
positor of  the  Confession,  p.  158.) 

"May  not  true  believers,  by  reason  of  their  imperfections, 
and  the  many  temptations  and  sins  they  are  overtaken  with, 
fall  aAvay  from  the  state  of  grace  ? 

"  True  believers,  by  reason  of  the  unchangeable  love  of 
God,  and  his  decree  and  covenant  to  give  them  perse- 
verance, their  inseparable  union  with  Christ,  his  continual 
intercession  for  them,  and  the  Spirit  and  seed  of  God 
abiding  in  them,  can  neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away 
from  the  state  of  grace,  but  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God 
through  faith  unto  salvation."    (Larger  Catechism,  ques.  79.) 

If  it  should  be  objected  to  this  statement,  that,  although 
Calvinists  believe  in  the  necessity  of  the  salvation  of  those 
for  whom  Christ  died,  yet  they  believe  it  is  conditional,  or 
is  made  to  depend  upon  the  faith  of  the  believer,  I  reply, 
it  is  admitted  that  Calvinists  teach  that  faith  is  a  condition 


178  I'ERSEVERANCE.  [CHAP.  VI. 

of  H.'-ilvation ;  but  now  observe,  they  teach  that  it  is  irre- 
Bistiblv  communicated — if  it  is  a  condition,  it  is  not  a  con- 
dition dependent,  in  any  sense,  upon  the  behever  himself, 
but  is  an  effect  wrought  in  him  without  his  consent. 

"The  covenant  of  redemption  secures  the  continuance 
and  growth  of  the  principle  of  grace,  until  the  believer 
shall  be  perfected  in  heaven.  In  this  life  he  never  utterly 
falls  for  one  moment  from  grace."     (Ely's  Contrast,  p.  274.) 

*'The  hohness  of  the  Christian  continues  to  the  end.'* 
(Dwight.)  Upon  this  proposition,  Dr.  Dwight  delivers  one 
of  his  most  labored  sermons,  to  prove  the  necessary  final 
perseverance  of  the  saints. 

Upon  this  point  it  will  scarcely  be  necessary  for  me  to 
adduce  a  larger  number  of  quotations.  Those  already 
given  are  full  and  authoritative.  This,  indeed,  is  a  poini 
where  less  reference  to  authority  is  required  than  almost 
any  other  of  the  Calvinian  creed ;  here  they  all  harmonize. 
The  final  perseverance  of  the  saints,  with  them,  is  a  frankly- 
avowed  and  cherished  sentiment.  To  rob  them  of  this, 
would  be  to  rob  them  of  one  of  their  gods.  If  their  view  of 
election  is  true,  this  is  consequentially  true ;  if  their  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement  is  true,  this  cannot  be  false ;  if  their 
doctrine  of  effectual  grace  is  true,  this  must  follow.  So  that 
they  are,  at  least,  consistent  with  themselves  in  believing 
and  teaching  it;  they  could  not  do  otherwise.  It  is  an 
integral  part  of  the  same  great  system  of  fatalism  and  in'C- 
sponsibility,  which  has  been  examined  in  this  book. 

The  doctrine,  as  taught  in  the  above  quotations,  may 
thus  be  stated : 

1.  Persons  once  regenerated  may  fall  into  grievous  sins, 
and  continue  therein  for  a  time  indefinite. 

2.  They  cannot  totally  fall  away,  but,  however  sinful  they 
may  become,  will  continue  to  be  children  of  God. 

3.  They  cannot  finally  perish,  but  must  necessarily  come 
to  eternal  life. 


CUAP.  VI. J  PERSEVERANCE.  179 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as 
taught  by  their  Confession  of  Faith  and  standard  authors, 
To  it  -vve  find  many  and,  to  us,  insuperable  objections. 
Read  and  judge  for  yourselves. 

1.  And  first,  we  object,  the  doctrine  is  without  warrant 
from  the  word  of  God.  It  is  admitted  that  passages  are 
found  in  the  Scriptures,  which,  disconnected  from  their  rela- 
tions, might  alloiv  of  a  construction  partly  favorable  to  a 
doctrine  resembling  the  above.  But  no  passage  clearly 
teaches  it ;  none  necessarily  infers  it ;  no  principle  of  reve- 
lation sanctions  it;  if  it  could  be  true,  its  truth  never  can 
be  derived  from  the  Bible.  This,  then,  is  our  first  ground 
of  objection,  and  to  a  Christian  it  is  sufiicient;  he  need  go 
no  further;  here  he  will  be  content  to  put  an  end  to  his 
inquiries.  It  is  not  of  the  Bible,  it  cannot,  therefore,  be 
received,  will  be  his  reasoning. 

2.  But  second,  I  object  further,  and  as  growing  out  of 
the  foregoing,  not  only  is  this  doctrine  not  taught  in  the 
Bible,  but,  what  is  more  fatal  to  it,  the  Bible  teaches  that  it  is 
false,  by  teaching  that  precisely  what  it  denies  is  the  truth. 
It  is  to  be  discarded  not  alone  because  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  it,  but  because  the  Bible  asserts  its  falsehood.  Rev- 
elation is  not  silent  upon  the  point,  but  it  is  expressly,  fully, 
unmistakably  against  the  assumption.  The  doctrine  itself 
is  false,  or  the  Bible.  I  cannot  better  express  this  objec- 
tion than  in  the  following  language  of  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his 
tiact  on  Perseverance.  He  thus  presents  the  Scripture 
argument : 

"  For  thus  saith  the  Lord :  *  When  the  righteous  turneth 
away  from  his  righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity,  in 
his  trespass  that  he  hath  trespassed,  and  in  his  sin  that  he 
hath  sinned,  in  them  shall  he  die.'     (Ezek.  xviii,  24.) 

"  That  this  is  to  be  understood  of  eternal  death  appears 
from  the  twenty-sixth  verse :  *  When  a  righteous  man  turneth 
away  from  his  righteousness  and  committeth  iniquity,  and 


180  PERSEVERANCE.  [cHAP.  VI. 

di<?tli  in  them,  [here  is  temporal  death,]  for  liis  iniquity 
that  he  hath  done  he  shall  die.'     [Here  is  death  eternal  J 

"It  appears,  farther,  from  the  whole  scope  of  the  chap- 
ter, which  is  to  prove,  '  the  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die ' 
(V.  4.) 

"  If  you  say,  *  The  soul  here  means  the  body,'  I  answer, 
that  will  die  whether  you  sin  or  no. 

"  Again,  thus  saith  the  Lord :  '  When  I  shall  say  to  the 
righteous,  that  he  shall  surely  live,  if  he  trust  to  his  own 
righteousness,  [yea,  or  to  that  promise  as  absolute  and  un- 
conditional,] and  commit  iniquity,  all  his  righteousness 
shall  not  be  remembered ;  but  for  the  iniquity  that  he  hath 
committed  shall  he  die.'     (Chap,  xxxiii,  13.) 

"  Again :  *  When  the  righteous  turneth  from  his  righteous- 
ness, and  committeth  iniquity,  he  shall  even  die  thereby." 
(V.18.) 

"  Therefore,  one  who  is  holy  and  righteous  in  the  judg- 
ment of  God  himself,  may  yet  so  fall  as  to  perish  everlast- 
ingly. 

"  But  how  is  this  consistent  with  what  God  declared 
elsewhere  ?  *  If  his  children  forsake  my  law,  and  walk  not 
in  my  judgments,  I  will  visit  their  offenses  with  the  rod, 
and  their  sin  with  scourges.  Nevertheless,  my  loving 
kindness  will  I  not  utterly  take  from  him,  nor  suffer  my 
truth  to  fail.  My  covenant  will  I  not  break,  nor  alter  the 
thing  that  is  gone  out  of  my  lips.  I  have  sworn  once  by 
my  holiness,  that  I  will  not  fail  David.'  (Psalm  Ixxxix, 
30-35.) 

"  I  answer,  there  is  no  manner  of  inconsistency  between 
one  declaration  and  the  other.  The  prophet  declares  the 
just  judgment  of  God  against  every  righteous  man  who 
falls  from  his  righteousness.  The  Psalmist  declares  the  old 
loving  kindnesses  which  God  sware  unto  David  in  his  truth. 
*I  have  found,'  saith  he,  'David,  my  servant;  with  ray 
holy  oil  have  I  anointed  liim.     My  hand  shall  hold  him 


CilAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  181 

fiist,  and  my  ai'in  shall  strengthen  him.  His  seed,  also, 
will  I  make  to  endure  for  ever,  and  his  throne  as  the  days 
of  heaven.'  (V.  20,  21,  29.)  It  follows :  '  But  if  his  children 
forsake  my  law,  and  walk  not  in  my  judgments,  neverthe- 
less, my  loving  kindness  will  I  not  utterly  take  from  him, 
nor  suffer  my  truth  to  fail.  My  covenant  will  I  not  break. 
1  will  not  fail  David.  His  seed  shall  endure  for  ever,  and 
his  throne  as  the  sun  before  me.'     (V.  30,  &c.) 

"  May  not  every  man  see,  that  the  covenant  here  spoken 
of  relates  wholly  to  David  and  his  seed  or  children? 
Where,  then,  is  the  inconsistency,  between  the  most  abso- 
lute promise  made  to  a  particular  family,  and  that  solemn 
account,  which  God  has  here  given,  of  his  way  of  dealing 
with  all  mankind? 

*'  Beside,  the  very  covenant  mentioned  in  these  words,  is 
not  absolute,  but  conditional.  The  condition  of  repentance, 
in  case  of  forsaking  God's  law,  was  implied,  though  not 
expressed;  and  so  strongly  implied,  that,  this  condition 
failing — not  being  performed,  God  did  also  fail  David.  He 
did  'alter  the  thing  that  had  gone  out  of  his  lips,'  and 
yet  without  any  impeachment  of  his  truth.  He  '  abhorred 
and  forsook  his  anointed,'  (v.  38,)  the  seed  of  David,  whose 
th.one,  if  they  had  repented,  should  have  been  *as  the 
days  of  heaven.'  He  did  '  break  the  covenant  of  his 
servant,  and  cast  his  crown  to  the  ground.'  (V.  39.)  So 
vainly  are  these  words  of  the  Psalmist  brought  to  contradict 
the  plain,  full  testimony  of  the  prophet! 

"  Nor  is  there  any  contradiction  between  this  testimony  of 
God  by  Ezekiel,  and  those  words  which  he  spake  by  Jere- 
miah :  '  I  have  loved  thee  with  an  everlasting  love ;  there- 
fore, with  loving  kindness  have  I  drawn  thee.'  For  do 
these  words  assert,  that  no  righteous  man  ever  turns  from 
his  righteousness?  No  such  thing.  They  do  not  touch 
the  question,  but  simply  declare  God's  love  to  the  Jewish 
(/hurch.    To  see  this  in  the  clearest  hght,  you  need  only 


182  PERSEVERANCE.  [CHAP.  VI. 

read  over  the  whole  sentence:  'At  the  same  time,  saitb 
rhe  Lord,  I  will  be  the  God  of  all  the  families  of  Israel, 
and  they  shall  be  my  people.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  The 
people  which  were  left  of  the  sword  found  grace  in  the 
wilderness ;  even  Israel,  when  I  caused  him  to  rest.  The 
Lord  hath  appeared  of  old  unto  me,'  saith  the  prophet, 
speaking  in  the  person  of  Israel,  *  saying,  I  have  loved 
thee  with  an  everlasting  love ;  therefore,  with  loving  kind- 
ness have  I  drawn  thee.  Again  I  will  build  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  be  built,  0  virgin  of  Israel.'     (Chap,  xxxi,  1-4.) 

"  Suffer  me  here  to  observe,  once  for  all,  a  fallacy  which 
is  constantly  used  by  almost  all  writers  on  this  point.  They 
perpetually  beg  the  question,  by  applying  to  particular 
persons  assertions  or  prophecies  which  relate  only  to  the 
Church  in  general,  and  some  of  them  only  to  the  Jewish 
Church  and  nation,  as  distinguished  from  all  other  people. 

"  If  you  say,  '  But  it  was  particularly  revealed  to  me,  that 
God  had  loved  me  with  an  everlasting  love,'  I  answer, 
suppose  it  was — which  might  bear  a  dispute — it  proves  no 
more,  at  t]ie  most,  than  that  you,  in  particular,  shall  perse- 
vere; but  does  not  affect  the  general  question,  whether 
others  shall,  or  shall  not. 

"  Secondly.  One  who  is  endued  with  the  faith  that 
purifies  the  heart — that  produces  a  good  conscience,  may, 
nevertheless,  so  fall  from  God  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"  For  thus  saith  the  inspired  apostle :  '  War  a  good  war- 
fare; holding  faith  and  a  good  conscience;  which  some 
having  put  away,  concerning  faith  have  made  shipwreck.* 
(1  Tim.  i,  18,  19.) 

"  Observe,  1.  These  men  [such  as  Hymeneus  and  Alex- 
ander] had  once  the  faith  that  purifies  the  heart — that 
produces  a  good  conscience ;  which  they  once  had,  or  they 
could  not  have  *  put  it  away.' 

"  Observe,  2.  They  'made  shipwreck'  of  the  faith,  which 
necessarily  implies   the  total  and  final   loss  of  it;    for  a 


CHAP.  VI. J  PERSEVERANCE.  183 

vessel  once  wrecked  can  never  be  recovered;  it  is  totally 
and  finally  lost. 

"And  the  Apostle  himself,  in  his  second  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  mentions  one  of  these  two  as  irrecoverably  lost, 
*  Alexander,'  says  he,  '  did  me  much  evil :  the  Lord  shall 
reward  him  according  to  his  works.'  (2  Tim.  iv,  14.) 
Therefore,  one  who  is  endued  with  the  faith  that  purifies 
the  heart — that  produces  a  good  conscience,  may,  never- 
theless, so  fall  from  God  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"  *  But  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with  the  words  of  our 
Lord,  "He  that  beheveth  shall  be  saved?"  ' 

"  Do  you  think  these  words  mean,  '  He  that  believes,'  at 
this  moment,  '  shall '  certainly  and  inevitably  *  be  saved  V 

"  If  this  interpretation  be  good,  then,  by  all  the  rules  of 
speech,  the  other  part  of  the  sentence  must  mean,  'He* 
that  does  'not  believe,'  at  this  moment,  'shall'  certainly 
and  inevitably  '  be  damned.' 

"Therefore,  that  interpretation  cannot  be  good.  The 
plain  meaning,  then,  of  the  whole  sentence  is,  'He  that 
beheveth,'  if  he  continue  in  faith,  '  shall  be  saved ;  he 
that  believeth  not,'  if  he  continue  in  unbelief,  'shall  be 
damned.' 

"  '  But  does  not  Christ  say  elsewhere,  "  He  that  beheveth 
hath  everlasting  life?"  (John  iii,  36,)  and,  "He  that  be- 
lieveth on  Him  that  sent  me  hath  everlasting  hfe,  and  shall 
not  come  into  condemnation ;  but  is  passed  from  death  unto 
life?'"     (John  v,  24.) 

"I  answer,  1.  The  love  of  God  is  everlasting  life.  It  is, 
in  substance,  the  life  of  heaven.  Kow,  every  one  that  be- 
lieves, loves  God,  and,  therefore,  'hath  everlasting  life.' 

"  2.  Every  one  that  believes,  'is,'  therefore,  'passed  from 
death' — spiritual  death—'  unto  life,'  and, 

"  3.  '  Shall  not  come  into  condemnation,'  if  he  endureth 
in  the  faith  unto  the  end ;  according  to  our  Lord's  own 
words,   '  He  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved ; '  and, 


1S4  PERSEVERANCE.  [cHAP.  VI. 

•  Veril}',  I  say  imto  you.  If  a  man  keep  my  saying,  lie  shall 
never  see  death.'     (John  viii,  51.) 

"  Thh-dly.  Those  who  are  grafted  into  the  good  olivo 
tree,  the  spiritual,  invisible  Church,  may,  nevertheless,  so 
fall  from  God  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"  For  thus  saith  the  apostle :  '  Some  of  the  branches  are 
broken  off,  and  thou  art  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with 
them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree. 
Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear:  if  God  spared  not  the 
natural  branches,  take  heed  lest  he  spare  not  thee.  Behold 
the  goodness  and  severity  of  God !  On  them  which  fell 
severity ;  but  toward  thee,  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  his 
goodness ;  otherwise  thou  shalt  be  cut  off.'  (Rom.  xi. 
17.  20-22.) 

"We  may  observe  here,  1.  The  persons  spoken  to  were 
actually  grafted  into  the  olive  tree. 

"  2.  This  olive  tree  is  not  barely  the  outward,  visible 
Church,  but  the  invisible,  consisting  of  holy  believers.  So 
the  text :  *  If  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  holy ;  and 
if  the  root  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches.'     (V.  16.)     And, 

*  Because   of   unbelief,    they   were   broken   off,   and   thou 
standest  by  faith,' 

"3.  These  holy  believers  were  still  liable  to  be  cut 
off  from  the  invisible  Chuixh,  into  which  they  were  then 
grafted. 

"  4.  Here  is  not  the  least  intimation  of  those  who  were 
so  cut  off  being  ever  grafted  in  again. 

"Therefore,  those  who  are  grafted  into  the  good  olive 
tree,  the  spiritual,  invisible  Church,  may,  nevertheless,  so 
fall  from  God  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"  'But  how  does  this  agree  with  the  29th  verse,  "The 
gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance?'" 

"  The  preceding  verse  shows :  '  As  touching  the  election, 
[the  unconditional  election  of  the  Jew^h  nation,]  they 
are  beloved  for  the  fathers'  sake:'  f^r  the  sake  of  theii 


CHAP.  VJ.J  PERSEVERANCE.  186 

forefathers.  It  follows,  [in  proof  of  this,  that  'they  are 
beloved  for  their  fathers'  sake,'  that  God  has  still  blessing 
in  store  for  the  Jewish  nation :]  '  For  the  gifts  and  calling 
of  God  are  without  repentance ;'  for  God  doth  not  repent 
of  any  blessings  he  hath  given  them,  or  any  privileges  he 
hath  called  them  to.  The  words  here  referred  to  were 
originally  spoken  with  a  peculiar  regard  to  these  national 
blessings.  *  God  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lie ;  neither 
the  son  of  man,  that  he  should  repent.'     (Num.  xxiii,  19.) 

"  *  But  do  you  not  hereby  make  God  changeable  ^ 
Whereas,  "with  him  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow 
of  turning."  '  (James  i,  IV.)  By  no  means.  God  is  un- 
changeably holy;  therefore,  he  always  'lovetli  righteous- 
ness and  hateth  iniquity.'  He  is  unchangeably  good; 
therefore,  he  pardoneth  all  that  'repent  and  beheve  the 
Gospel.'  And  he  is  unchangeably  just;  therefore,  he 
'rewardeth  every  man  according  to  his  works.'  But  all 
this  hinders  not  his  resisting,  when  they  are  proud,  those 
to  whom  he  gave  grace  when  they  were  humble.  Nay,  his 
unchangeableness  itself  requires,  that,  if  they  grow  high- 
minded,  God  should  cut  them  off — that  there  should  be 
a  proportionable  change  in  all  the  Divine  dispensations 
toward  them. 

"  *  But  how  then  is  God  faithful  ? '  I  answer,  in  fulfilling 
every  promise  which  he  hath  made,  to  all  to  whom  it  is 
made— all  who  fulfill  the  condition  of  that  promise.  More 
particularly,  1.  'God  is  faithful'  in  that  'he  will  not  suffer 
you  to  be  tempted  above  that  you  are  able  to  bear.' 
(1  Cor.  X,  13.)  2.  'The  Lord  is  faithful,  to  establish  and 
keep  you  from  evil' — if  you  put  your  trust  in  him — from 
all  the  evil  which  you  might  otherwise  suffer,  through 
*  unreasonable  and  wicked  men.'  (2  Thess.  iii,  2,  3.) 
3.  'Quench  not  the  Spirit;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good;- 
abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil;  and  your  whole  spirit, 
soul,  and  body,  shall  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the 
16 


186  PERSEVERANCE.  JCHAP.   VI. 

coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Faithful  is  he  that 
calleth  you,  who  also  will  do  it.'  (1  Thess.  v,  19,  &c.) 
4.  Be  not  disobedient  unto  the  heavenly  calling ;  and  '  God 
is  faithful,  by  whom  ye  were  called,  to  confirm  you  unto 
the  end,  that  ye  may  be  blameless  in  the  day  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.'  (1  Cor.  i,  8,  9.)  Yet,  notwithstanding  all 
this,  unless  you  fulfill  the  condition,  you  cannot  attain  the 
promise. 

"  '  Nay,  but  are  not  "  all  the  promises,  yea  and  amen?**  * 
They  are  firm  as  the  pillars  of  heaven.  Perform  the  condi- 
tion, and  the  promise  is  sure.  Believe,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved. 

"  '  But  many  promises  are  absolute  and  unconditional.' 
In  many,  the  condition  is  not  expressed.  But  this  does  not 
prove  there  is  none  implied.  No  promises  can  be  expressed 
in  a  more  absolute  form,  than  those  above  cited  from  the 
eighty-ninth  Psalm.  And  yet  we  have  seen  a  condition 
was  implied  even  there,  though  none  was  expressed. 

"  'But  there  is  no  condition,  either  expressed  or  implied, 
in  those  words  of  St.  Paul :  "I  am  persuaded  that  neither 
death,  nor  life,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  crea- 
ture, shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God, 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."  '     (Rom.  viii,  38,  39.) 

"  Suppose  there  is  not — which  will  bear  a  dispute — yet 
what  will  this  prove  ?  Just  thus  much :  that  the  apostle 
was,  at  that  time,  fully  persuaded  of  his  own  perseverance. 
And  I  doubt  not  but  many  behevers,  at  this  day,  have  the 
very  same  persuasion,  termed  in  Scripture,  *  the  full  assur- 
ance of  hope.'  But  this  does  not  prove  that  every  believer 
shall  persevere,  any  more  than  that  evc^y  believer  is  thus 
fully  persuaded  of  his  own  perseverance. 

"  Those  who  are  branches  of  the  true  vine,  of  whopi 
Christ  says,  'I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches,'  may, 
nevertheless,  so  fall  from  God  as  to  pe -i^h  c\erlastingl}. 

"  For  thus  saith  our  blessed  Lord  bii7>s^U'    *  ^  am  tiie 


CHAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  187 

true  vine,  and  my  Father  is  the  husbandman.  Every 
branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  it  away.  1 
am  the  vine ;  ye  are  the  branches.  If  a  man  abide  not  in 
me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered ;  and  men 
gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are 
burned.'     (John  xv,  1-6.) 

"Here  we  may  observe,  1.  The  persons  spoken  of  were, 
in  Christ,  branches  of  the  true  vine.  2.  Some  of  these 
branches  abide  not  in  Christ,  but  the  Father  taketh  them 
away.  3.  The  branches  which  abide  not  are  cast  forth — 
cast  out  from  Christ  and  his  Church.  4.  They  are  not 
only  cast  forth,  but  withered;  consequently,  never  grafted 
in  again.  Nay,  5.  They  are  not  only  cast  forth  and 
withered,  but  also  cast  into  the  fire.  And,  6.  They  are 
burned.  It  is  not  possible  for  words  more  strongly  to 
declare,  that  even  those  who  are  now  branches  in  the  true 
vine,  may  yet  so  fall  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"  By  this  clear,  indisputable  declaration  of  our  Lord,  we 
may  interpret  those  which  might  be  otherwise  liable  to 
dispute;  wherein  it  is  certain,  whatever  he  meant  beside, 
he  did  not  mean  to  contradict  liimself.  For  example: 
*This  is  the  Father's  will,  that  of  all  which  he  hath  given 
me,  I  should  lose  nothing.'  Most  sure ;  all  that  God  hath 
given  him,  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  next  verse,  'every 
one  which  believeth  on  him,'  namely,  to  the  end,  he  *will 
raise  up  at  the  last  day,'  to  reign  with  him  for  ever. 

"  Again :  *  I  am  the  living  bread :  if  any  man  eat  of  this 
bread  [by  faith]  he  shall  live  for  ever.'  (John  vi,  51.)  True ; 
if  he  continue  to  eat  thereof.     And  who  can  doubt  of  it  ? 

"Again:  *My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them, 
and  they  follow  me.  And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life: 
and  they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them 
out  of  my  hand.'     (John  x,  27,  28.) 

"  In  the  preceding  text  the  condition  is  only  implied ;  in 
this,  it  is  plainly  expressed.     They  are  mv  sheep  that  hear 


188  PERSEVERANCE.  [CHAP.  VT. 

my  voice,  that  follow  me  in  all  holiness.  And  'if  ye  do 
those  things,  ye  shall  never  fall.'  None  shall  'pluck  you 
out  of  my  hands.' 

"Again:  'Having  loved  his  own  which  were  in  the 
world,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end.'  (John  xiii,  1.)  'Hav- 
ing loved  his  own,'  namely,  the  apostles — as  the  very  next 
words,  'which  were  in  the  world,'  evidently  show — 'he 
loved  them  unto  the  end'  of  his  life,  and  manifested  that 
love  to  the  last. 

"Once  more:  'Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own 
name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be 
one,  as  we  are  one.'     (John  xvii,  11.) 

"Great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  this  text,  and  it  has 
been  hence  inferred,  that  all  those  whom  the  Father  had 
given  him — a  phrase  frequently  occurring  in  this  chapter — 
must  infallibly  persevere  to  the  end. 

"And  yet,  in  the  very  next  verse,  our  Lord  himself  de- 
clares, that  one  of  those  whom  the  Father  had  given  him, 
did  not  persevere  unto  the  end,  but  perished  everlastingly. 

"  His  own  words  are,  '  Those  that  thou  gavest  me  I  have 
kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition.' 
(John  xvii,  12.) 

"So  one  even  of  these  was  finally  lost! — a  demonstra- 
tion that  the  phrase,  'those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,' 
signifies  here,  if  not  in  most  other  places,  too,  the  twelve 
apostles,  and  them  only. 

"  On  this  occasion,  I  cannot  but  observe  another  common 
instance  of  begging  the  question — of  taking  for  granted 
what  ought  to  be  proved.  It  is  usually  laid  down  as  an 
indisputable  truth,  that  whatever  our  Lord  speaks  to  or 
of  his  apostles,  is  to  be  applied  to  all  believers.  But  this 
cannot  be  allowed  by  any  who  impartially  search  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  cannot  allow,  without  clear  and  particular 
proof,  that  any  one  of  those  texts  which  related  primarily 
to  the  apostles,  as  all  men  grant,  belong  to  any  but  them. 


rUAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  ISD 

"  Those  who  so  effectually  know  Christ,  as  by  that  knowl- 
edge to  hare  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  may  yet 
fall  back  into  those  pollutions,  and  perish  everlastingly. 

"For  thus  saith  the  apostle  Peter,  *If  after  they  have 
escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  through  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  [the  only  pos- 
sible way  of  escaping  them,]  they  are  again  entangled 
therein  and  overcome,  the  latter  end  is  worse  with  them 
than  the  beginning.  For  it  had  been  better  for  them  not 
to  have  known  the  way  of  righteousness,  than,  after  they 
have  known  it,  to  turn  from  the  holy  commandment  de- 
livered unto  them.'     (2  Peter  ii,  20,  21.) 

"That  the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  righteousness, 
which  they  had  attained,  was  an  inward,  experimental 
knowledge,  is  evident  from  that  other  expression — they 
had  '  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world ;'  an  expression 
parallel  to  that  in  the  preceding  chapter,  verse  4,  'Having 
escaped  the  corruption  which  is  in  the  world.'  And  in 
both  chapters,  this  effect  is  ascribed  to  the  same  cause; 
termed  in  the  first,  'the  knowledge  of  Him  who  hath 
called  us  to  glory  and  virtue ;'  in  the  second,  more  explic- 
itl}^  *  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ.* 

"And  yet  they  lost  that  experimental  knowledge  of 
Christ  and  the  way  of  righteousness;  they  fell  back  into 
the  same  pollutions  they  had  escaped,  and  were  'again 
entangled  therein  and  overcome.'  They  'turned  from  the 
holy  commandment  dehvered  to  them,'  so  that  their  'latter 
end  was  worse  than  their  beginning.' 

"Therefore,  those  who  so  effectually  know  Christ,  as  by 
that  knowledge  to  have  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the 
world,  may  yet  fall  back  into  those  pollutions,  and  perish 
everlastingly. 

"  And  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  St.  Peter's  words, 
in  the  fiist  chapter  of  his  former  epistle :  ' Who  are  kept 
by    the    power    of    God    through    Mih    unto    salvation.* 


19C  PERSEVERANCE.  [CHAP.  VI. 

Undoubtedly,  so  are  all  tliey  who  ever  attain  eternal  salva- 
tion. It  is  the  power  of  God  only,  and  not  our  own,  by 
which  we  are  kept  one  day  or  one  hour. 

"Those  who  see  the  light  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the 
face  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  who  have  been  made  partakers 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  the  witness,  and  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  may,  nevertheless,  so  fall  from  God  as  to  perish 
everlastingly. 

"For  thus  saith  the  inspired  writer  to  the  Hebrews: 
'It  is  impossible  for  those  who  were  once  enlightened, 
and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  were  made 
partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  they  fall  away,  to  renew 
them  again  to  repentance;  seeing  they  crucify  to  them- 
selves the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open 
shame.'     (Hebrews  vi,  4,  6.) 

"Must  not  every  unprejudiced  person  see,  the  expres- 
sions here  used  are  so  strong  and  clear,  that  they  cannot, 
without  gross  and  palpable  Avresting,  be  understood  of  any 
but  true  believers  ? 

"They  'were  once  enlightened;'  an  expression  familia, 
with  the  apostle,  and  never  by  him  applied  to  any  but 
believers.  So:  'The  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  give 
unto  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation:  the  eyes 
of  your  understanding  being  enlightened,  that  ye  may 
know  what  is  the  hope  of  his  calling,  and  what  is  the 
exceeding  greatness  of  his  power,  to  us- ward  that  believe.' 
(Ephesians  i,  17-19.)  So  again:  'God,  who  commanded 
the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  into  our 
hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of 
God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.'  (2  Corinthians  iv,  6.) 
This  is  the  light  which  no  unbelievers  have.  They  aro 
utter  strangers  to  such  enlightening.  'The  God  of  this 
world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  which  believe  not, 
lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  Gospel  of  Christ  should  shine 
unto  them.'     (V.  4.) 


CHAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  191 

"*They  had  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  [emphatically 
so  called,]  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
So  St.  Peter  likewise  couples  them  together :  *  Be  baptized 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,'  (Acts  ii,  38,)  whereby  the  love  of  God 
was  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts,  with  all  the  other  fruits 
of  the  Spirit.  Yea,  it  is  remarkable  that  our  Lord  him- 
self, in  his  grand  commission  to  St.  Paul,  to  which  the 
apostle  probably  alludes  in  these  words,  comprises  all 
these  three  particulars.  *I  send  thee  to  open  their  eyes, 
and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the 
power  of  Satan  unto  God,  [here  contracted  into  that  one 
expression,  '  they  were  enlightened,']  that  they  may  receive 
forgiveness  of  sins,  ['the  heavenly  gift,']  and  an  inheritance 
among  them  which  are  sanctified,'  (Acts  xxvi,  18,)  which 
are  made  *  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  of  all  the  sancti- 
fying influences  of  the  Spirit. 

"The  expression,  'They  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,' 
is  taken  from  the  Psalmist,  'Taste  and  see  that  the  Lord 
is  good.'  (Psalm  xxxiv,  8.)  As  if  he  had  said.  Be  ye  as 
assured  of  his  love,  as  of  any  thing  you  see  with  your 
eyes.  And  let  the  assurance  thereof  be  sweet  to  your 
soul,  as  honey  is  to  your  tongue. 

"And  yet  those  who  had  been  thus  'enlightened,'  had 
*  tasted'  this  *gift,'  and  been  thus  'partakers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,'  so  'fell  away'  that  it  was  'impossible  to  renew 
them  again  to  repentance.' 

"'But  the  apostle  makes  only  a  supposition:  "If  they 
should  fall  away." ' 

"I  answer:  the  apostle  makes  no  supposition  at  all. 
There  is  no  if  in  the  original.  The  words  are,  ^Ahvvatov 
tovf  artaf  ^oi'tiadivtaq,  xai  rtapaTiECSovta^,  that  is,  in  plain 
English,  'It  is  impossible  to  renew  again  unto  repentance 
those  who  were  once  enlightened  and  have  fallen  away;* 
therefore,  they  must  perish  everlastingly. 


192  PERSEVERANCE.  [cHAP.  VI. 

"  '  But  if  SO,  then  farewell  all  my  comfort. ' 

''ITien  your  comfort  depends  on  a  poor  foundation.  My 
comfort  stands  not  on  any  opinion,  either  that  a  believer 
can  or  cannot  fall  away — not  on  the  remembrance  of  any 
thing  wrought  in  me  yesterday,  but  on  what  is  to-day — 
on  my  present  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ,  reconcihng 
me  to  himself — on  my  now  beholding  the  light  of  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  walking  in  the 
light  as  he  is  in  the  light,  and  having  fellowship  with  the 
Father  and  with  the  Son.  My  comfort  is,  that  through 
grace  I  now  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  his 
Spirit  doth  bear  witness  with  my  spirit  that  I  am  a  child 
of  God.  I  take  comfort  in  this,  and  this  only,  that  I  see 
Jesus  at  the  right  hand  of  God — that  I  personally  for 
myself,  and  not  for  another,  have  a  hope  full  of  immor- 
tality— that  I  feel  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  ray 
heart,  being  crucified  to  the  world,  and  the  world  crucified 
to  me.  My  rejoicing  is  this,  the  testimony  of  my  con- 
science, that  in  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity,  not  with 
fleshly  wisdom,  but  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  have  my 
conversation  in  the  world. 

"Go  and  find,  if  you  can,  a  more  solid  joy,  a  more 
blissful  comfort,  on  this  side  heaven.  But  this  comfort 
is  not  shaken,  be  that  opinion  true  or  false,  whether  the 
saints  in  general  can  or  cannot  fall. 

"If  you  take  up  with  any  comfort  short  of  this,  you 
lean  on  the  staff  of  a  broken  reed,  which  not  only  will  not 
bear  your  weight,  but  will  enter  into  your  hand  and  pierce 
you. 

"Those  who  live  by  faith,  may  yet  fall  from  God,  and 
perish  everlastingly. 

"For  thus  saith  the  same  inspired  writer,  'The  just  shall 
live  by  faith;  but  if  any  man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall 
have  no  pleasure  in  him.'  (Hebrews  x,  38.)  'The  just 
[the  justified  person]  shall  five  by  faith;'  even  now  shall  he 


CHAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  103 

live  the  life  whicli  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God;  and  if  he 
endure  unto  the  end,  he  shall  live  for  ever.  'But  if  any 
man  draw  back,'  saith  the  Lord,  'my  soul  shall  have  no 
pleasure  in  him;'  that  is,  I  will  utterly  cast  him  off;  and, 
accordingly,  the  drawing  back  here  spoken  of  is  termed,  in 
the  verse  immediately  following,  *  drawing  back  to  perdition.' 

*"But  the  person  supposed  to  draw  back,  is  not  the 
same  with  him  that  is  said  to  live  by  faith.' 

"  I  answer,  1.  Who  is  it,  then  ?  Can  any  man  draw  back 
from  faith  who  never  came  to  it  ?     But, 

"  2.  Had  the  text  been  fairly  translated,  there  had  been 
no  pretense  for  this  objection.  For  the  original  runs 
thus :  *0  Stxatoj  ix  Tti^ttdi  ^i^aetat,'  xai  iav  VTio^el^rj'tai.  If 
o  Sfcxatoj,  'the  just  man  that  lives  by  faith  [so  the  expres- 
sion necessarily  implie.  ,  there  being  no  other  nominative 
of  the  verb]  draws  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure 
in  him.' 

"'But  the  apostle  adds:  "We  are  not  of  them  who 
draw  back  unto  perdition."'  And  what  will  you  mfer 
from  thence?  This  is  so  far  from  contradicting  what  has 
been  observed  before,  that  it  manifestly  confirms  it.  It  is 
a  farther  proof  that  there  are  those  'who  draw  back  unto 
perdition,'  although  the  apostle  was  not  of  that  number. 
Therefore,  those  who  live  by  faith,  may  yet  fall  from  God 
and  perish  everlastingly. 

"'But  does  not  God  say  to  every  one  that  lives  by  faith, 
"I  will  never  leave  thee  nor  forsake  thee?'" 

"  The  whole  sentence  runs  thus :  '  Let  your  conversation 
be  without  covetousness,  and  be  content  with  such  things 
as  ye  have ;  for  He  hath  said,  I  will  never  leave  thee  nor 
forsake  thee.'  True,  provided  'your  conversation  be  with- 
out covetousness,'  and  ye  'be  content  with  such  things  as 
ye  have.'  Then  you  may  f  boldly  say,  the  Lord  is  my 
helper,  and  I  will  not  fear  Tfhat  man  shall  do  unto  rne.' 

♦'Po  you  not  see,  1.  That  this  promise,  as  here  recited, 
'17      ■  ' 


194  PERSEVERANCE.  [cHAP.  VI. 

relates  wholly  to  temporal  things?  2.  That,  even  tlius 
taken,  it  is  not  absolute,  but  conditional?  And,  3.  That  the 
condition  is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  very  same  sentence  ? 

"Those  who  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant, 
may  so  fall  from  God  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"For  thus  again  saith  the  apostle:  'If  we  sin  willfully, 
after  we  haie  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there 
remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,  but  a  certain  fearful 
looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indignation,  which  shall 
devour  the  adversaries.  He  that  despised  Moses'  law,  died 
without  mercy  under  two  or  three  witnesses.  Of  how  much 
sorer  punishment  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath 
trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the 
blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  un- 
holy thing !'     (Hebrews  x,  26 - 29.) 

"It  is  undeniably  plain,  1.  That  the  person  mentioned 
here,  was  once  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant. 
2.  That  he  afterward,  by  known,  willful  sin,  trod  under  foot 
the  Son  of  God.  And,  3.  That  he  hereby  incun-ed  a  sorer 
punishment  than  death,  namely,  death  everlasting. 

"  Therefore,  those  who  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the 
covenant,  may  yet  so  fall  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"'What!  Can  the  blood  of  Christ  burn  in  hell?  or  can 
the  purchase  of  the  blood  of  Christ  go  thither  ? ' 

"  I  answer,  1 .  The  blood  of  Christ  cannot  bum  in  hell, 
no  more  than  it  can  be  spilled  on  the  earth.  The  heavens 
must  contain  both  his  flesh  and  blood  until  tlie  restitution 
of  all  things.     But, 

"  2.  If  the  oracles  of  God  are  true,  one  who  was  purchased 
by  the  blood  of  Christ,  may  go  thither.  For  he  that  was 
sanctified  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  was  purchased  by  the 
blood  of  Christ.  But  one  who  was  sanctified  by  the  blood 
of  Christ,  may,  nevertheless,  go  to  hell ;  may  fall  under  thai 
fiery  indignation  which  shall  for  ever  devour  the  adversaries, 

"'Can  a  child  of  God,  then,  go  to  hell?  or  can  a  mat) 


CHAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  196 

be  a  child  of  God  to-day,  and  a  child  of  the  devil  to- 
morrow? If  God  is  our  Father  once,  is  he  not  our  Father 
always?' 

"I  answer,  1.  A  child  of  God,  that  is,  a  true  believer — 
for  he  that  believeth  is  born  of  God — while  he  continues  a 
true  behever,  cannot  go  to  hell.  But,  2.  If  a  believer 
make  shipwreck  of  the  faith,  he  is  no  longer  a  child  of  God ; 
and  then  he  may  go  to  hell,  yea,  and  certainly  will,  if  he 
continues  in  unbelief.  3.  If  a  believer  may  make  ship- 
wreck of  the  faith,  then  a  man  that  believes  now,  may  be 
an  unbeliever  some  time  hence;  yea,  very  possibly,  to- 
morrow; but,  if  so,  he  who  is  a  child  of  God  to-day,  may 
be  a  child  of  the  devil  to-morrow.  For,  4.  God  is  the 
Father  of  them  that  believe,  so  long  as  they  believe.  But 
the  devil  is  the  father  of  them  that  believe  not,  whether 
they  did  once  believe  or  no. 

"  The  sum  of  all  this  is :  if  the  Scriptures  are  true,  those 
who  are  holy  or  righteous  in  the  judgment  of  God  himself — 
those  who  are  endued  with  the  faith  that  purifies  the  heart, 
that  produces  a  good  conscience — those  who  are  grafted 
into  the  good  olive  tree,  the  spiritual,  invisible  Church — 
those  who  are  branches  of  the  true  vine,  of  whom  Christ 
says,  '  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches ' — those  who  so 
effectually  know  Christ,  as  by  that  knowledge  to  have 
escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world-^those  who  see  the 
light  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
who  have  been  made  partakers  of  the  Hply  Ghost,  of  the 
witness,  and  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit — those  who  live  by 
faith  in  the  Son  of  God — those  who  are  sanctified  by  the 
blood  of  the  covenant,  may,  neyjertheless,  so  fall  from  God 
as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

"Therefore,  let  him  that  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall." 

I  have  thus  at  length  presented  the  argument  of  Mr. 
Wesley  on  this  point,  because  of  its  Scriptural  weight  and 
iipportance.      It    is   sufficient.      No    candid,    unprejudiced 


1 96  PERSEVERANCE.  [CHAP.  VI. 

reader,  it  seems  to  me,  can  arise  from  its  study  without 
conviction  of  its  truth.  But  though  sufficient,  I  must  ask 
attention  to  one  or  two  additional  considerations,  bearing 
against  the  doctrine  under  examination.  Logical  conse- 
quences are  fatal  to  it ;  among  many  instances  we  select  the 
following : 

1.  If  the  doctrine  be  true,  after  conversion  a  man  is  no 
lono-er  a  free  agent.  In  this,  as  in  all  respects  with  the  fate 
and  absurdity  of  the  system,  he  is  brought  under  a  neces- 
sity which  he  has  no  power  to  avoid.  He  cannot  fall  away 
from  salvation.  It  will  not  do  for  Calvinists  to  modify  the 
doctrine  by  saying  he  will  not;  its  distinct  assumption 
is,  he  cannot;  he  has  no  sufficient  power.  Let  us  look 
closely  at  this.  Either  a  man,  after  conversion,  can  fall 
into  vicious  practices  and  sins,  or  he  cannot.  If  he  cannot, 
he  is  not  a  free  agent  in  a  state  of  trial.  If  he  can,  then 
he  may  be  lost — finally  perish ;  or  if  he  does  not  finally 
perish,  he  must  either  be  saved  in  his  sins,  or  he  must  be 
saved  from  his  sins.  The  former  alternative  no  one  em- 
braces; but  if  he  must  be  saved  from  his  sins — and  this 
depends  upon  repentance  and  faith — the  man  is  not  a  free 
agent  in  these  exercises,  because  he  is  under  an  absolute 
necessity,  his  salvation  being  unavoidable;  whatever  is: 
necessary  thereto  is,  also,  unavoidable;  and  being  so,  the 
man  is  no  longer  free,  unless  a  man  may,  at  the  same  time, 
be  free  not  to  do,  and  yet  under  an  unavoidable  necessity  to 
do,  a  given  thing.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  doctrine  of 
fate  or  absolute  necessity  legitimately  results. 

2.  I  object,  it  renders  the  condition  of  saints  in  this  life 
more  secure  than  that  of  the  angels  in  heaven,  and  of  our 
first  parents  in  paradise.  They,  notwithstanding  their  purity 
and  the  favor  of  an  approving  Creator,  had  power  to  fall 
and  perish.  Can  it  be  presumed  that  frail  mortals  in  this 
state  of  trial  may  not?  or,  if  so,  why  not?  Is  the  faith- 
fulness and  immutability  of  God  plead  ?     In  what  sense  do 


CHAP.  VI.]  TERSEVERANCE.  197 

these  secure  believers  more  infallibly  than  the  angels  of 
heaven — than  Adam  in  a  state  of  innocence. 

3.  If  this  doctrine  is  true,  it  is  no  difference  what  a  man 
does  after  conversion ;  he  cannot  peril  his  soul — cannot  even 
render  his  salvation  doubtful.  Thus  it  inculcates  recklessness 
and  licenses  crime.  Taken  in  connection  with  the  doctrine 
of  pre-irresistible  regeneration,  it  must  unsettle  all  ideas  of 
responsibility,  and  do  away  with  every  motive  to  a  holy 
life.  For,  first,  the  man  cannot  avoid  being  regenerated ;  it 
is  operated  upon  him,  or  in  him,  by  irresistible  power,  and 
then,  being  regenerated,  he  may  become  during  life  a  devil 
in  sin,  but  he  cannot  miss  of  heaven.  Now,  what  sheer 
licentiousness  is  here!  what  more  is  requisite  to  induce 
unlimited  and  incurable  recklessness?  The  man  is  in  no 
danger — it  is  all  one ;  let  him  indulge  to  the  utmost  excess ; 
he  is  safe,  and  cannot  be  less  so.  Is  this  Christianity  ?  Is 
this  iniquitous  teaching  to  be  palmed  upon  the  world  as 
God's  truth? 

4.  I  object,  further,  if  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance 
be  true,  then  sin  is  not  so  abhorrent  in  a  Christian  as  it  is 
in  a  sinner — is  not  attended  with  the  same  consequences. 
The  sins  into  which  a  believer  may  fall  are  accounted 
sufficient  to  damn  a  sinner,  but  are  not  sufficient  to  make 
a  whit  uncertain  the  salvation  of  the  believer,  if  committed 
by  him.  What  strange  theology !  Is  it  not  a  principle, 
and  a  true  one,  that  where  much  is  given  much  will  be 
required?  the  greater  the  obligation,  the  greater  the  guilt 
of  delmquency  ?  But  in  this  case  the  principle  is  reversed. 
A  man,  because  he  has  been  made  the  subject  of  distin- 
guishing grace,  may  now  sin  most  aggravatedly,  but  he  will 
only  be  loved  the  more ;  the  greater  his  crimes,  the  greater 
the  love  manifested  in  his  continual  pardon.  Is  not  this 
teaching  that  we  may  sin  that  grace  may  abound? 

5.  The  doctrine  is  not  analogous  to,  or  resultant  from,  or 
in  harmony  with,  the  doctrine  of  Christianity.     This  lias 


198  PERSEVERANCE.  [cHAP.  VI. 

been  shown  abundantly  in  the  refutation  of  cognate  errors. 
The  grounds  upon  which  it  is  based  are  false,  and  tlie 
superstructure  stands  upon  emptiness.  As  conclusions 
drawn  from  false  premises  are  worthless  and  void,  so  this 
doctrine  vanishes  with  its  foundations,  which  have  been 
demonstrated  to  be  false.  The  idea  of  perseverance,  is 
dependent  upon  the  doctrines  of  election,  commercial  atone- 
ment, sovereign  and  irresistible  grace.  No  one  can  think 
of  it  separate  and  apart  from  these.  These  being  destroyed, 
therefore,  to  dream  of  this  is  equivalent  with  supposing  a 
cause  without  an  effect,  or  a  sequence  without  a  premise. 

6.  It  is  contrary  to  the  known  conviction  and  conscious- 
ness of,  I  venture  to  say,  all  Christians.  There  may  be  a 
sense  of  security  in  the  minds  of  believers,  greater  in  some 
than  in  others;  but  it  is  believed  that  honest  and  careful 
scrutiny  into  the  subject,  will  show  that  believers  universally 
feel,  whatever  may  be  their  attainments  in  grace,  that  there 
is  a  possibility  of  their  coming  short  of  salvation— that  they 
yet  have  the  fearful  power  to  keep  themselves  out  of  eternal 
life.  Is  not  this  so?  I  appeal  to  the  consciousness  of 
every  one  who  may  chance  to  read  these  pages.  Do  you 
not  feel  the  certainty  of  such  a  power  and  possibility? 
Nay,  is  there  not  an  undefined  uneasiness  lest  you  may 
come  short;  and  if  not  this,  a  sense  of  the  necessity  of 
much  diligence,  that  you  may  at  last  enter  into  life  ?  Does 
not  God,  in  his  own  word,  appeal  to  such  a  possibility,  to 
stimulate  his  children  to  constant  and  needful  exertion  ?  Is 
this  consciousness  false?  Is  our  heavenly  Father  trifling 
with  us,  in  his  admonitions,  exhortations,  and  expostulations, 
addressed  to  us  in  view  of  such  imminent  liability  ? 

7.  I  object,  that  it  is  contrary  to  probabihty,  if  not  cer- 
tainty, with  respect  to  individuals  whose  history  is  given  in 
the  Scriptures,  who  at  one  time  were  recognized  as  children 
of  God,  and  whose  final  damnation  is  unquestionable.  It 
is,  also,  contrary  to  probability  with  respect  to  many  persons 


OUAP.  VI.]  PERSEVERANCE.  199 

known  in  every  age  of  the  Church ;  some  of  whom, 
I  doubt  not,  will  be  readily  called  up  to  the  recollection  of 
my  readers — persons  who,  at  one  time,  gave  most  indu- 
bitable evidence  of  genuine  repentance  and  conversion,  and 
who  for  many  years  brought  forth  all  the  fruits  of  a  real 
Christian  life,  such  as  it  is  admitted  could  not  exist  without 
the  influence  of  grace,  yet,  after  all,  fell  into  the  most 
dreadful  sins,  and  died  in  the  very  midst  of  their  iniquities, 
gloating  in  their  shame,  and  who  must  have  finally  perished 
or  entered  into  life  with  their  sins,  or  have  been  made  holy 
after  death ! 

Such  are  some  of  the  objections  we  urge  against  the 
doctrine  under  examination.  It  is  without  warrant  from 
the  Bible.  It  is  contrary  to  the  explicit  statements  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  opposed  to  its  facts,  principles,  and  implica- 
tions. It  is  inharmonious  and  discordant  with  its  doctrines. 
Its  logical  consequences  are  antagonistic  to  the  reason  and 
nature  of  man,  to  the  genius  of  religion,  and  to  the  con- 
sciousness of  our  species.  It  is  a  dangerous  doctrine, 
productive  of  recklessness,  licentiousness,  and  crime,  as  its 
legitimate  offspring.  All  this  is  objectionable  to  it,  without 
a  single  redeeming  or  apologetic  circumstance.  To  embrace 
It,  is  to  act  in  advance  of,  if  not  to  abandon,  common  sense ; 
and  to  be  influenced  by  it,  is  to  endanger  all  the  interests 
of  sound  virtue  and  true  religion,  theoretical  and  practical, 
so  far  as  these  are  under  the  guardianship  of  Christianity. 


200  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  [CHAP.  VII. 

CHAPTER    VII. 

THE    HEATHEN    WORLD. 

The  Calvinistic  view  of  the  heathen  world,  as  it  is  peculiar 
in  itself,  and  most  appalling  in  its  consequences,  deserves  a 
brief  separate  notice.  It  is  thus  stated  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith : 

"  Others  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  opera- 
tions of  the  Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and, 
therefore,  cannot  be  saved.  Much  less  can  men,  not  pro- 
fessing the  Christian  religion.,  he  saved  in  any  other  way 
whatsoever,  he  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives 
according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion 
they  do  profess;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may, 
is  very  pernicious  and  to  he  detested^     (Chap,  x,  sec.  4.) 

"Those  cannot  be  saved  who  are  totally  destitute  of 
revelation.  Though  the  invitation  which  nature  gives  to 
seek  God,  be  sufficient  to  render  those  without  excuse  who 
do  not  comply  with  it,  yet  it  is  not  sufficient,  even  objec- 
tively, for  salvation ;  for  it  does  not  afford  that  lively  hope 
which  maketh  not  ashamed,  for  this  is  only  revealed  by  the 
Gospel ;  whence  the  Gentiles  are  said  to  have  been  without 
hope  in  the  world.  It  does  not  show  the  true  way  to  the 
enjoyment  of  God,  which  is  no  other  than  faith  in  Christ- 
It  does  not  sufficiently  instruct  us  about  the  manner  in  whicl? 
we  ought  to  worship  and  please  God,  and  do  what  is 
acceptable  to  him.  In  short,  this  call  by  nature  never  did, 
nor  is  it  even  possible  that  it  ever  can,  bring  any  to  the 
saving  knowledge  of  God;  the  Gospel  alone  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth.  We  are 
persuaded  there  is  no  salvation  without  Christ;  no  commu- 
nion of  adult  persons  with  Christ,  but  by  faith  in  him ;  no 
faith  in  Christ  without  the  knowledge  of  him ;  no  knowledge 


CHAP.   VII.]  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  201 

but  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel ;  no  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  in  the  works  of  nature."  (Expositor  of  the  Con- 
fession, p.  145.) 

From  this  quotation  I  learn  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
believes  in  the  reprobation,  and  inevitable  damnation,  of  tlie 
whole  heathen  world.  This  they  have,  as  above  quoted, 
made  an  article  of  their  creed.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at,  that  this  horrible  dogma  has  been  kept  as  much  as  pos- 
sible out  of  view — only  introduced  as  necessity  required 
It  is,  however,  sufficiently  avowed,  to  inextricably  convict 
the  system.  Dr.  Rice,  I  find,  has  committed  himself  to  its 
support.  He  says,  "Vast  multitudes  have  lived  and  died 
in  Pagan  darkness.  Now,  of  what  avail  is  it  to  say,  that 
Christ  designed,  by  his  atonement,  to  save  all  men,  when 
the  truth  is,  that  to  vast  multitudes  he  has  not  given  the 
means  of  availing  themselves  of  the  provisions  ?"  This 
quotation,  if  its  meaning  is  at  all  discernible,  teaches  that 
Christ  did  not  die  with  a  design  to  save  all  men,  and  that 
^he  heathen  world  were  among  the  number  of  those  to  be 
excluded  from  the  provisions  of  his  atonement.  They  were 
first  excluded  from  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  then,  in  proof 
thereof,  they  were  denied  the  means  of  making  it  available. 
Thus  they  were  reprobated  to  death,  and  the  mear^s  were 
appointed  to  secure  the  end.  I  suppose  there  will  be  no 
need  that  additional  authorities  be  referred  to,  or  quota- 
tions increased.  These  are  sufficient,  and  it  remains  simply 
thai  we  offer  our  objections ;  if,  indeed,  the  doctrine  is  not 
so  horrible  in  itself,  as  to  need  no  formal  statement  of  its 
consequences,  to  render  it  detestable  to  all. 

I  object  to  it,  in  general,  that  it  is  revolting  to  every 
sensibility  of  the  soul — to  every  feeling  of  humanity — to 
all  that  is  generous  in  rehgion  and  reason.  Together  with 
other  elements  of  the  Calvinistic  faith,  it  dishonors,  it  de- 
monizes  the  God  of  the  universe !  Look  at  it.  The  whole 
lieathen  world  inevitably,  necessarily  damned !     Have  you 


202  THE  HEATHEN  WORLD.  [cHAP.  VII 

pondered  this  fearful  proposition?  What  a  wholesale 
destruction  is  here !  Two-thirds  of  the  human  race  damned 
every  thirty  years,  without  the  possibility  of  salvation,  not 
including  the  vast  array  of  reprobates  in  Christian  coun- 
tries! Not  less  than  seven  hundred  millions  of  souls 
damned  every  generation!  All  reprobates!  Behold  that 
dreadful  column  marching  forward  to  the  unavoidable  doom ! 
Twenty-one  hundred  millions — twilie  the  whole  population 
of  the  globe  every  hundred  years — damned  ! — consigned 
to  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire,  to  endure  the  woes  of 
hell  for  ever!  Behold  them,  as  that  column  sinks  away 
into  the  mouth  of  the  burning  pit — but  ever  supplied  with 
new  recruits  at  the  further  end,  and  thus  moving  on  from 
age  to  age — filling  the  insatiable  jaws  of  the  yawning  gulf! 
And,  as  you  see  that  column  move,  and  hear  the  roar  of 
the  devouring  abyss,  into  whose  flaming  jaws  they  plunge, 
ask  the  question,  why  are  all  these  damned  ?  And  you 
shall  be  answered  by  the  Calvinist  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury— by  Dr.  Rice,  whom  you  may  imagine  as  standing  upon 
the  verge  of  the  devouring  crater — it  is  the  good  pleasure  of 
God — they  are  reprobates!  They  are  damned,  not  be- 
cause they  are  heathen — this  is  their  misfortune,  not  their 
crime—but  they  are  reprobates!  If  they  are  damned  at 
all,  there-  never  was  a  time,  since  God  passed  his  eternal 
decree,  when  they  might  have  been  saved;  for  then  their 
doom  was  fixed,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God! 
Do  you  ask  for  a  reason  for  this  appalling  opinion?  you 
are  met  with  the  satisfactory  reply,  "  Who  art  thou  tliat 
repliest  against  GodV 

Add  to  this  melancholy,  dreadful  procession,  all  the 
descendants  of  Abraham,  and  all  the  reprobates  in  nomi- 
nally Christian  countries.  Stay,  until  your  vision  takes  in 
the  utmost  of  the  slowly-moving  column  of  souls.  Behold 
the  cataract  of  immortal  spirits,  dashing  on  perpetually 
down  the  steeps  of  the  ever-yawning  and  insatiable  abyss ! 


G«AP.  VII.]  THE  HEATHEN  WORLD.  203 

Lo!  that  river,  as  it  stretches  away  through  ages  and 
generations — a  river  of  immortal  beings  swallowed  up  in 
hell !  And  now,  pause  and  consider  again,  Avho  are  these  ? 
what  is  that  hell  into  which  they  plunge?  and  why  are 
they  so  damned?  These  are  God's  creatures,  made  and 
fashioned  by  himself!  That  abyss  into  which  they  are 
cast,  is  the  place  of  eternal  torment!  Stop — take  in  the 
thought,  eternal.  Eternal !  No  end !  A  million  years  are 
gone — they  suffer  on !  As  many  millions  of  ages  as  there 
are  grains  of  sand  in  the  solid  globe  have  passed — they 
suffer  still !  And  still,  as  many  myriads  more  as  atoms  in 
the  universe,  multiplied  by  every  second  that  had  passed 
before — and  now,  their  woe  is  just  begun!  Not  a  second, 
compared  with  their  eternal  years,  is  passed!  And  now, 
behold  their  woe — their  death  of  deaths!  To  them  there^ 
is  no  hope !  No  light  will  ever  dawn  upon  their  dungeon — 
no  mercy  will  ever  speak  peace  to  their  troubled  spirits! 
Stay  yet  a  moment — let  us  alight  on  yonder  burning  crag ! 
And  now,  I  ask,  why  these  woes — why  all  these  lost?  I 
hear  the  answer ;  it  comes  from  the  Calvinists  of  the  nine- 
teenth century — it  comes  from  Dr.  Rice — they  are  repro- 
bates— they  were  made  for  these  flames!  There  never  was 
a  time  when  they  had  power  to  escape  them !  They  dwell 
amid  these  waves  of  eternal  wrath,  not  for  any  avoidable 
fault  of  theirs,  but  to  the  praise  of  God's  glorious  power ! 
My  spirit  alternately  shivers  and  burns  at  the  horrid  impu- 
tation! What  has  God  done,  that  his  rational  creatures 
should  so  foully  slander  his  adorable  character?  Pardon 
me ;  every  power  of  my  soul  mutinies  at  the  blasphemy. 

Presbyterians,  do  you  beheve  this?  It  is  in  your  Con- 
fession, but  is  it  in  your  hearts?  Do  you  believe  that  God 
IS  such  a  being  as  this  ?  Such  a  sentiment,  if  it  were  true, 
it  seems  to  me,  is  sufficient  to  shroud  the  universe  in  endless 
mourning,  and  pervade  all  intelligences  with  consternation 


204  THE  HEATHEN  WORLD.  [cHAP.  VII. 

and  dread.    To  state  it,  is  to  execrate  it.    Reason,  liumanity, 
religion,  turn  from  it  with  disgust  and  detestation. 

1.  But,  particularly,  I  object  to  this  doctrine;  it  is 
nowhere  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  Net  a  single  passage 
can  be  found,  warranting  even  its  inference,  upon  correct 
principles  of  interpretation.  This,  taken  in  connection  with 
its  horrid  import,  renders  its  belief,  if  not  a  crime  against 
God,  a  reproach  alike  to  humanity  and  Christianity. 

2.  I  object  to  this  doctrine,  that  it  is  absolutely  con- 
trary to  express  revelation — to  its  principles,  and  its  direct 
teaching. 

(1.)  It  is  contrary  to  the  principle  that  is  laid  down  in 
the  parable  of  the  talents,  "  Where  no  law  is,  there  is  no 
transgression."  (Rom.  iv,  15.)  "Sin  is  not  imputed  where 
there  is  no  law."     (Rom.  v,  13.) 

(2.)  To  express  teaching.  "For  as  many  as  have  sinned 
without  law,  shall,  also,  perish  without  law,"  &c.  (Rom. 
ii,  8.) 

3.  I  object  to  the  doctrine:  if  the  whole  heathen  world 
are  inevitably  and  necessarily  damned,  then  they  are 
damned  without  any  fault  of  their  own,  or  they  are 
punished  unavoidably — they  are  placed  in  circumstances 
where  such  damnation  is  the  consequence  of  that  over 
which  they  have  not,  and  never  did  have,  any  control. 

Are  they  damned  for  being  heathen  ?  But  they  are  not 
responsible  for  this.  They  certainly  had  no  part  in  electing 
whether  they  would  be  heathen  or  not.  Is  a  man  to  be 
damned  because  he  has  the  misfortune  to  be  born  in  one 
region  of  the  earth — not  in  another?  Is  such  the  law  by 
which  men  are  finally  to  be  judged — such  the  principle 
upon  which  the  momentous  question  of  eternal  destiny  is 
to  be  fixed  ? 

Are  they  to  be  damned  because  they  have  never  been 
favored  with  the  light  of  revelation  ?    Are  they  responsible 


CHAl'.  VII.]  THE  HEATHEN  WORLD.  205 

for  this?  Is  it  a  sufficient  reason  for  casting  a  man  into 
hell,  that  he  never  heard  of  the  existence  of  a  Bible?  Is 
this  the  ground  upon  which  the  God  worshiped  by  Christians 
determines  the  fate  of  his  creatures? 

Are  they  to  be  damned  because  they  have  not  exercised 
faith  in  the  Son  of  God  ?  Could  they  exercise  faith  in  a 
being  of  whom  they  never  heard?  Had  they  power  to 
believe  on  one  they  never  knew  ?  Is  it  sin  in  a  man  not  to 
believe  in  Jesus,  if  he  never  heard  of  any  such  being — 
did  not,  and  could  not,  know  any  thing  respecting  him  ? 

If  for  none  of  these,  for  what  are  the  heathen  all 
necessarily  damned  ?  Because  they  did  not  live  up  to  the 
light  they  had  ?  But  can  this  be  shown,  that  no  heathen 
over  acted  according  to  his  best  light?  But  when  the  con- 
demnation of  the  heathen  is  placed  upon  the  ground  that 
they  willfully  transgressed  the  law  they  have,  it  abandons 
the  whole  Calvinian  assumption  of  their  unavoidable  damna- 
tion; for,  if  they  willfully  transgressed,  they  might  have 
obeyed;  then  they  would  have  been  saved,  and  so  their 
damnation  is  not  unavoidable. 

Is  not  the  reason  of  their  damnation,  according  to  Cal- 
vinism, simply  this — they  are  reprobates  ?  Before  they  were 
born,  they  were  assigned  their  fate :  not,  indeed,  from  any 
foresight  of  any  thing  in  them;  but  because  it  was  the 
sovereign  pleasure  of  God  that  they  should  be  damned! 
For  some  cause,  sufficient  to  infinite  Wisdom,  but  which  he 
has  not  thought  necessary  to  reveal  to  the  human  race,  he 
saw  that  it  would  be  best  that  they  should  be  damned,  and 
he,  therefore,  made  them  to  this  end.  But,  that  he  might 
seem  to  have  an  excuse  for  such  monstrous  cruelty,  he  first 
caused  the  parents  of  these  reprobates  to  become  depraved, 
and  then,  for  this  depravity,  consigned  them  to  destruction ; 
but  left  them  in  the  world  long  enough  for  them  to  manifest 
their  depravity,  and  then,  for  this  outward  manifestation, 
executes  upon  them  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire. 


206  THE  HEATHEN  WORLD.  [CUA.P.  VII 

And,  that  the  outward  manifestation  might  be  infaUibly 
secured,  and  so  the  excuse  be  certain,  and  the  correspond- 
ing punishment  inflicted,  he  consigned  them  to  heathenism — 
a  state,  in  which  the  Christian  virtues  were  impossible,  but 
in  which  they  might,  nay,  certainly  would,  work  all  manner 
of  uncleanness  with  greediness,  and  indulge  in  the  utmost 
excess  of  vice;  and  so  heathenism  would  be  the  means  to 
justify  damnation,  as  the  end  purposed  of  God  from  eter- 
nity. What  admirable  machinery  is  this!  How  infinite 
Malevolence  arranged  and  contrived  all,  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  appalling  aim  and  end!  Eternal  damnation 
of  an  immortal  and  unoffending  intelligence,  the  supreme, 
ultimate  object!  To  secure  this,  as  a  next  step,  the  fall  of 
the  first  man,  and  so  the  corruption  of  his  race.  Then,  all 
being  corrupt,  the  reprobation  of  a  large  number  on  account 
thereof.  Then,  to  justify  the  sentence  of  reprobation  upon 
these,  their  consignment  to  heathenism,  that  they  might, 
unavoidably,  become  personally  vicious  and  sinful,  that  the 
universe  might  suppose  their  damnation  to  be  on  account 
of  their  sins,  and  so  God  escape  the  odium  of  cruelty,  at 
the  same  time  that  it  was  all  fixed  and  executed  according 
to  his  will.  Horrid !  horrid !  Heathenism,  in  order  to  pre 
viously  appointed  damnation ! 

4.  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  there  is  neither  justice  noi 
goodness  in  God.  We  assert  this  awful  consequence  without 
qualification — without  timidity.  With  us^  no  proposition 
can  be  more  certainly  true  than  this.  We  must  learn  to 
believe  black  is  white,  and  white  is  black,  when  we  can 
believe  that  God  is  a  just  being,  at  the  same  time  consigning 
millions  of  beings  to  the  flames  of  hell,  for  that  over  which 
they  never  had,  and  never  could  have,  any  control — for 
that  which  was  absolutely  unavoidable.  When  I  can  beheve 
that  a  God  of  goodness  is  capable  of  such  conduct,  I  shalj 
be  pi-epared  to  embrace  any  absurdity — any  contradiction 
however  revolting.     No  language  can  express  my  horror — 


CHAP.  VII.  1  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  207 

my  detestation  of  such  a  sentiment.  Yet  such  is  the  ineA'i- 
table  consequences  of  the  Calvinistic  theory — a  consequence, 
hke  a  horrid  ghost,  haunting  it  at  every  turn.  It  flows 
from  reprobation — from  hmited  atonement — from  the  sin- 
ner's inabihty — from  the  unavoidable  damnation  of  the 
heathen  world.  With  each,  with  all  of  them,  the  justice 
and  goodness  of  God  is  in  eternal  conflict,  if  it  is  unjust  and 
unmerciful  to  damn  a  being  for  ever,  for  not  performing  im- 
possibihties ;  which,  who,  that  has  the  feelings  of  humanity, 
not  to  say  the  benevolence  of  a  Christian,  can  doubt?  If 
this  doctrine  be  true,  why,  then,  shall  I  doubt  the  damnation 
of  idiots  and  infants?  Is  the  one  more  repulsive  than  the 
other?  If  a  heathen  may  justly  be  damned  for  not  having 
faith  in  Christ,  of  whom  he  never  heard,  why  may  not  my 
innocent,  unconscious  babe  be  damned,  by  the  same  Moloch, 
for  a  similar  reason;  the  injustice,  the  fiendish  cruelty,  in 
the  one  case  would  be  no  greater  than  in  the  other. 

5.  I  object  to  this  doctrine,  that  it  claims  our  belief, 
not  only  against  evidence  the  most  convincing — evidence 
derived  from  the  word  and  principles  of  revelation,  as  well 
as  from  the  reason  and  common  sense  of  mankind — but, 
also,  without  a  shadow  of  proof  to  support  it,  derived 
from  any  quarter.  It  ought  not  to  be  believed  if  there 
were  no  evidence  to  the  contrary,  because  there  is  none  in 
its  support;  but  to  ask  for  it  the  credence  of  reasonable 
and  Christian  men,  under  these  circumstances,  when  reason 
and  Christianity  equally  and  absolutely  condemn  it,  and 
nothing  supports  it,  can  be  little  short  of  madness;  it  is 
preposterous  in  the  extreme.  If  there  was  conflicting  evi- 
dence— if  any  thing  could  be  said  in  its  favor — if  any 
solitary  reason  could  be  urged  in  its  support — but  to  ask 
of  men  to  believe  one  of  the  most  revolting  and  blas- 
phemous dogmas  that  falsehood  and  fanaticism  ever  in- 
vented, without  any  reason,  and  in  opposition  to  the  spon- 
taneous judgment  of  the  race,  and  to  the  word  of  God. 


208  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  [CHAP.  VEI. 

and  to  the  nature  and  fitness  of  things,  is  a  species  of  bold- 
ness which  scarcely  knows  a  parallel. 

6.  If  this  doctrine  is  true,  involving,  as  it  does,  the 
justice  and  goodness  of  God,  and  clothing  him  in  the  oppo- 
site and  dreaded  character  of  cruelty  and  maliciousness,  it 
must  unsettle  the  confidence  of  the  universe  in  him,  and 
cause  him  only  to  be  hated  and  lothed  by  every  rational 
being.  Let  such  a  sentiment  once  prevail — let  the  idea 
obtain  that  the  Almighty  sways  such  a  government,  and  is 
actuated  by  such  attributes,  and  heaven  and  hell  will  differ 
but  in  name.  Dismay  and  despair,  mingled  with  rage  and 
detestation,  will  be  the  universal  and  only  consciousness. 
Angels  will  join  their  curses  with  devils,  and  mute  nature, 
if  possible,  would  reverberate  the  merited  anathema  from 
sphere  to  sphere.  Such  a  conviction  must  whelm  creation 
in  anarchy ;  for  it  removes  the  only  basis  of  order — confi- 
dence in  the  great  Parent  and  Sovereign  of  all,  and  persua- 
sion that  his  government  is  established  in  justice  and  truth. 
Let  this  be  removed,  and  what  remains  but  curses  and 
death?  Who  could  reverence  and  love — who  could  adore 
and  worship  such  a  God?  None  but  devils  and  fiends, 
who  should  recognize,  in  his  hated  and  baleful  character, 
their  own  abhorred  attributes  infinitely  surpassed.  Thus, 
the  doctrine  would  unavoidably  anarchize  and  subvert  the 
whole  government  of  God.  The  fact  itself  would  be  en- 
tirely competent  to  such  a  result,  but,  much  more  so,  the 
principles  upon  which  it  is  founded,  or  from  which  it  ema- 
nated. Let  any  one  be  at  the  pains  to  study  the  philosophy 
of  his  own  nature — of  his  own  mind — and  he  will  not  fail 
to  come  to  the  game  conclusion.  He  will  see  that  such  a 
result  is  legitimate  to  such  a  cause  with  respect  to  himself, 
and  so  wjth  respect  to  all  other  beings  similarly  constituted. 

But  why  shall  I  add  reasons  upon  this  point?  Is  it 
possible  that  humanity  can  be  so  perverted  as  to  require  it? 
Is  it  not  so  manifestly  detestable,  that,  at  its  bare  mentit^ 


CBAP.  VII.]  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  209 

all  nature  spontaneously  rises  up  to  curse  it?  Where,  in 
the  universe,  will  it  find  an  argument — an  advocate  ?  Let 
it  be  stripped  naked,  and  stand  forth  in  its  own  true  char- 
acter— without  meretricious  drapery — without  mask  or  vail 
of  any  kind.  And  who  shall  come  from  heaven,  or  earth, 
or  hell,  to  plead  its  cause?  Who  but  the  father  of  lies, 
who  lives  to  blaspheme,  and  who  might  dare  to  assert  even 
this,  as  the  very  climax  of  his  infernal  blasphemies?  But, 
Presbyterians,  you  do  not  believe  this.  It  is  in  your  creed, 
but  you  have  abandoned  it.  I  charge  not  the  dreadful 
blasphemy  upon  you ;  if  any  of  you  still  cling  to  it,  it  is 
without  understanding  consequences.  What  I  charge  you 
with  is,  inconsistency  in  holding  on  to  and  supporting  such 
a  creed,  and  so  propagating  such  sentiments.  Be  careful 
how  you  do  this ;  you  see — you  cannot  but  see — the  appall- 
ing consequences.  I  have  named  them  in  candor,  with  all 
plainness,  but  in  love.  Do  consider  them  in  the  same  spirit ; 
do  not  take  offense  at  their  frightful  and  dreadful  import; 
but  simply  ask,  are  they  true  ?  and  then  decide  accordingly. 
And  will  the  Lord  help  you,  and  finally  bring  us  where 
truth  will  shine  as  the  day,  and  error  disappear  for  ever! 
Infant  Damnation. — It  is  deemed  proper,  in  connection 
with  the  foregoing,  to  say  something  on  the  subject  of  infant 
damnation.  This  horrible  doctrine  has,  from  time  imme- 
morial, been  charged  upon  Calvinists,  and,  certainly,  not 
without  abundant  evidence.  But  it  is  now  so  universally 
disclaimed,  that,  we  suppose,  a  reformation  has  been 
wrought  upon  this  point.  This  much  good  has  come  of 
the  manner  in  which  our  fathers  exposed  the  horrors  of  the 
system;  and,  as  we  delight  to  see  error  renounced,  we 
congratulate  our  friends  on  so  much  evidence  of  their  con- 
version. All  dying  infants  belong  to  the  elect!  This  is 
what  I  suppose  them  now  to  believe.  But  I  cannot,  to  save 
me,  tell  how,  or  why,  they  believe  this;  unless  it  be  to 
escape  the  odium  of  avoTving  an  opposite  sentiment. 

18 


210  THE    HEATHEN    WOULD.  [CHAP.  VII. 

But,  now,  what  I  want  to  bring  out  distinctly  is  this, 
that,  in  renouncing  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  they 
have  not  relieved  the  system  a  particle.  It  still  labors 
under  an  odium,  as  horrid  and  detestable,  as  though  it  pro- 
fessed the  old  dogma.  Though  it  now  believes  that  no 
infants  are  damned,  it  still  believes  in  what  is  precisely  the 
same !  Nay,  it  believes  what  is  transcendently  worse  and 
more  horrible!  Its  difficulties  are  not  diminished,  they 
still  press  it  with  unabated  force. 

They  believe  that  those  who  shall  finally  perish,  were 
reprobated,  from  eternity,  to  destruction — that  they  were 
passed  by  in  the  decree  of  election,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
consigned  to  eternal  damnation.  Now,  mark:  this  reproba- 
tion took  place  long  ages  before!  they  were  born.  It  excluded 
them  from  heaven ;  it  consigned  them  to  hell — irrevocably, 
unchangeably !  This,  millions  of  years  before  they  had  an 
existence.  As  soon  as  they  were  conceived,  they  were 
damned;  when  born,  they  were  under  irreversible  sen- 
tence— they  were  virtually  destroyed ! 

And,  now,  observe,  further :  the  cause  of  this  reprobation 
and  consequent  damnation,  was  their  simple,  inherited  cor- 
ruption. It  was  what  belonged  to  them  in  their  concep- 
tion— what  was  engendered  in  the  woinb — what  was  given 
to  them  when  being  was  given  to  them.  They  were  not 
reprobated  for  what  they  would  be  and  do,  as  foreseen  of 
God ;  but  he  passed  them  by,  or  reprobated  them,  for  their 
inherited  corruption  alone,  or  what  he  saw  them  to  be  in 
Adam.  Thus  they  were  reprobated  without  any  actual 
personal  sin.  That  is,  they  were  consigned  to  damnation 
when  they  were  not  a  span  Zow^— unborn  infants — and  for 
what  belonged  to  them  as  such,  without  reference  to  what 
they  would  be.  Is  not  this  infant  damnation?  Does  it 
not  show  that  every  reprobate  was  damned,  in  the  purpose 
of  God,  and  inevitably,  when,  as  yet,  he  was  an  unborn 
mfant,  and  for  what  he  was  at  that  period  ?     What  else  i? 


CZIAF.  VII.]  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  212 

infant  damnation?  Can  any  one  tell  me?  In  wl^at  does 
this  differ  from  actually  casting  an  infant,  gasping  its  first 
breath,  into  the  eternal  gulf?  Eat  this,  as  abundantly 
shown,  all  Calvinists  are  bound  to  believe;  they  cannot 
escape  it. 

But  I  have  said  this  is  worse,  in  connection  with  other 
points  of  the  system,  than  simple  infant  damnation.  I  re- 
peat it.  A  moment's  attention  will  show  you  the  correct- 
ness of  the  position.  The  doctrine  is,  that  certain  persons 
were  reprobated  to  certain  and  unavoidable  damnation  when 
they  were  born — before  it.  Well,  ;  .ow,  observe,  further : 
they  believe  that  every  actual  sin  will  increase  the  torments 
of  the  damned — that  for  every  abuse  of  mercies  enjoyed, 
blessings  offered,  their  punishment  will  be  enhanced  and 
increased..  Look,  for  a  moment,  if  you  have  the  moral 
nerve,  at  the  compound  horrors  of  the  system,  in  the  light 
of  these  points.  Every  sin  will  magnify  the  torments  of 
the  damned.  Now,  why  were  they  permitted  to  live  to 
commit  personal  sins,  and  thus  increase  their  torments? 
Why  ?  Not  that  they  might  repent — not  that  they  might 
turn  and  live.  This  was  eternally  impossible.  Why,  then, 
were  they  permitted  to  Hve?  For  this — read  it  with  dis- 
may— that  they  might  have  an  opportunity  to  increase 
their  damnation  a  million-fold — that  they  might  prepare 
for  themselves  a  deeper,  hotter,  more  awful  hell!  It 
would  have  been  a  mercy  in  God  to  have  sent  them  to 
hell  when  they  breathed  their  first  sweet  breath  upon  a 
mother's  bosom!  Monster  of  cruelty  that  he  was,  why 
did  he  not  then,  send  them  out  of  life  to  a  mitigated  per- 
dition? Why  did  he  offer  them  mercies,  when  he  knew 
they  could  not  accept  them  ?  Why  did  he  strive  with  them 
early  and  late?  Why  did  he  invite  them  to  life,  when  he 
knew  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for  them  to  comply,  and 
when  he  also  knew  that  for  every  such  offer  rejected  then 
damnation  would  be  greatly  magnified  ?     Why  this  ?     Was 


212  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD,  [cHAP.  VII. 

it  not  cruel  in  the  extreme?  Would  it  not  have  been  an 
act  of  transcendent  generosity,  Godlike  compassion,  to 
have  actually,  as  he  did  in  his  purpose,  sent  them  ad  to 
hell  in  their  infancy?  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  doctrine 
of  actual  infant  damnation  would  greatly  reheve,  instead  of 
increase  the  horrors  of  Calvinism.  Is  there  any  possible 
escape  from  this  conclusion?  If  there  is,  I  cannot  see 
it.  I  wish  I  could.  Dear  reader,  do  not  turn  in  anger 
away  from  this  fearful  imputation.  Ponder  it;  see  if  it 
is  not  true.  I  know  it  is  most  dreadful  and  terrific.  I 
tremble  to  write  it.  When  I  reflect  what  it  makes  of  the 
character  of  God,  I  shudder!  Ye  angels,  who  dwell  in 
light,  and  see  with  open  vision,  is  the  God  of  your  rap- 
turous worship  such  a  being  as  this?  Nay,  would  not 
such  an  imputation  cover  your  heavens  with  dismay,  and 
fill  your  seraphic  bosoms  with  consternation  and  dread? 
Does  not  the  universe,  from  the  seraphim  to  the  worm, 
pronounce  it  false  and  blasphemous  ? 

Sovereignty  of  God. — This  subject,  though  of  sufficient 
importance  to  claim  a  separate  and  distinct  notice,  must, 
for  the  present,  be  disposed  of  by  a  brief  notice,  in  con- 
nection with  the  foregoing. 

In  Calvinism,  all  things  are  resolved  into  sovereignty. 
No  difficulty  so  great,  but  the  sovereignty  of  God  ex- 
plains it.  No  absurdity,  or  contradiction,  or  blasphemy 
so  appalling,  but  here  is  its  defense:  "Even  so.  Father, 
for  so  it  seemeth  good  in  thy  sight."  "Who  art  thou  that 
repliest  against  God?"  "Shall  the  thing  formed  say 
to  him  that  formed  it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?" 

That  God  is  sovereign,  no  one  disputes.  That  he  has  a 
right  to  rule,  and  does  rule  in  heaven  and  earth,  is  not  even 
questioned.  But  we  protest,  in  the  name  of  reason  and 
religion,  and  for  the  honor  of  God,  against  appeahng  to 
his  sovereignty  for  the  purpose  of  propagating  slan- 
ders against  his  character — against  so  understanding  and 


CHAP.  VII.  I  THE    HEATHEN    WORLD.  21d 

construing  it,  as  to  bring  it  in  conflict  with  liis  justice  and 
other  attributes  of  his  nature.     He  has  no  rights  incon- 
sistenr,  witli  his  own  glorious  nature — he  has  no  sovereignty 
that  can  act  adversely  to  his  glorious  perfections.     He  is  a 
sovereign.     But  he  is  a  sovereign   God,  not  a  sovereign 
devil.     His  is  not  an  irresponsible,  blind,  capricious  sover- 
eignty.    His  rights  and  his  rule  are  not  resolvable  into 
mere  arbitrary  acts  of  will.     He  rules  in   righteousness, 
and  wisdom,  and  truth.     And  what  conflicts  with  thes**, 
God  claims  no  right  to — he  has  no  right  to ;  to  say  to  the 
contrary  would   be  to  dishonor  him.     The  sovereignty  of 
God,  therefore,  never  should  be  quoted  in  support  of,  or 
excuse  for,  what  is  manifestly  contrary  to  these.     He  has 
no    such    sovereignty.     When    any   thing    is    charged    to 
him   which   requires   such  a  supposition,  it   is  false    and 
slanderous  to  God.     Here  is  where  Calvinism  commits  one 
of  its  greatest  practical  blunders — a  misapprehension  of 
the  nature  of  sovereignty !     It  assumes  that  such  and  such 
things  are  so — revealed  in  the  Bible;   and,  it  matters  not 
how  homble  the  assumption,  it  holds  itself  under  no  obli- 
gation  to    consider   the    consequences,   however   glaringly 
false,  and   inconsistent,   and  dreadful.     It   is  all   referred 
to   God's  sovereignty.     It   is   all   answered   in  a  breath: 
''Even  so,  Father!"     Shame  on  s  ch  trifling  and  profana- 
tion of  holy  things!     Suppose  ye   that  the   God  of   the 
universe  feels  himself  honored  with  such  sacrifice?     Does 
he  esteem  such  a  defense — a  defense  which  demonizes  his 
character  to  illustrate  his  sovereignty?     No,   no,  it  is  a 
mistake!     God's  sovereignty  explains  no  principle  that  is 
manifestly  wrong — sanctions   no  fact   that   is   inconsistent 
with  justice.     "The   Judge  of  the  whole   earth  will   do 
right;"   he  cannot  do  wrong.     His  sovereignty  gives  him 
no  such  power. 


914  THE   WILL.  [chap.  VIII. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE  WILL. 

In  the  present  chapter  we  call  attention  more  particu- 
larly to  the  Calvinian  view  of  the  will.  This  subject  has 
been  involved  in  former  chapters,  but  it  is  of  such  impor- 
tance as  to  demand  separate  and  distinct  treatment. 
'  What,  then — it  immediately  becomes  an  important  ques- 
tion— is  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the  will,  and  of  agency? 
This  will  be  better  understood  by  reference  to  their  ac- 
knowledged standards. 

"  God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural 
liberty,  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor,  by  any  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  nature,  determined  to  good  or  evil. 

"  Man,  in  his  state  of  innocency,  had  freedom  and  power 
to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  good  and  well-pleasing  to 
God ;  but  yet,  mutably,  so  that  he  might  fall  from  it. 

"  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost 
all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying 
salvation;  so  as  a  natural  man,  being  altogether  averse 
from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereto." 
(Confession,  chap,  ix,  sec.  i,  ii,  iii.) 

This  chapter  gives  a  very  inadequate  account  of  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine  upon  the  point  in  question  until  its 
terms  are  explained,  and  the  views  of  authors  are  con- 
sulted. It  will  be  perfectly  understood  by  the  following 
explanations. 

In  the  Old  and  New  Divinity  Compared  I  read,  "  For  if 
God  does  not  possess  such  absolute  control  over  his  crea- 
tures, that  he  can  govern  them  according  to  his  pleasure, 
how  could  he  have  decreed  any  thing  unconditionally  con 
cerning  them,  since  it  might  happen,  that,  in  the  exercise 


OHAF.  VIII.l  THE    WILL.  215 

of  their  free  agency,  they  would  act  contrary  to  the  Divine 
purpose  ?  " 

If  this  paragraph  means  any  thing,  it  plainly  means  that 
unconditional  decrees  and  free  agency  are  irreconcilable; 
and,  as  all  things  are  unconditionally  decreed,  according  to 
the  system  there  can,  of  course,  be  no  free  agency. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  quoted  with  approval  by  Witsius,  says, 
**  It  is  essential  to  the  first  principle,  that  it  can  act  without 
the  assistance  and  influence  of  a  prior  agent ;  so  that,  if  the 
human  will  could  produce  any  action,  of  which  God  was 
not  author,  the  human  will  would  have  the  nature  of  a  first 
principle." 

*'  Nor  does  God  only  concur  with  the  actions  of  second 
causes.  When  they  act,  but,  also,  influences  tlie  causes 
themselves  to  act.  .  .  .  Calvinists  contend  that,  as 
nothing  can  ever  come  to  pass  without  a  cause,  the  acts 
of  the  will  are  never  contingent,  or  without  necessity — 
understanding  by  necessity,  a  necessity  of  consequence,  or 
an  infallible  connection  with  something  foregoing."  (Ex- 
positor of  Confession.) 

"Calvinists  conteiid,  that  a  power  in  the  will  to  de- 
termine its  own  determinations,  is  either  unmeaning,  or 
supposes,  contrary  to  the  first  principles  of  philosophy, 
something  to  arise  without  a  cause;  that  the  idea  of  the 
soul  exerting  an  act  of  choice,  or  preference,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  the  will  is  in  a  perfect  equilibrium,  or  state  of 
indifierence,  is  full  of  absurdity  and  self-contradiction :  and 
that,  as  nothing  can  ever  come  to  pass  without  a  cause,  the 
acts  of  the  will  are  never  contingent,  or  ivithout  necessity — 
understanding,  by  necessity,  a  necessity  of  consequences,  or 
an  infallible  connection  with  something  foregoing.  Accord- 
ing to  Calvinists,  the  liberty  of  a  moral  agent  consists  in  the 
power  of  acting  according  to  his  choice;  and  those  actions  are 
free  which  are  performed  without  any  external  compulsion 
or   restraint,  in  consequence  of  the  determinations  of  his 


216  THE    WILL.  [CIIAP.  VIII. 

own  mind.  The  necessity  of  a  man's  willing  and  acting 
in  conformity  to  his  apprehensions  and  dispositions,  is,  in 
their  opinion,  fully  consistent  with  all  the  liberty  which  can 
belong  to  a  rational  nature.  The  infinite  Being  necessarily 
wills  and  acts  according  to  the  absolute  perfection  of  his 
nature,  yet  with  the  highest  liberty.  Angels  necessarily 
will  according  to  the  perfection  of  their  nature,  yet  with 
full  liberty ;  for  this  sort  of  necessity  is  so  far  from  inter- 
fering with  hberty  of  will,  that  the  ^perfection  of  the  will's 
liberty  lies  in  such  a  necessity.''  (Expositor  of  Con- 
fession, p.  136.) 

"Neither  does  God  only  excite  and  predetermine  the 
will  of  men  to  vicious  actions,  so  far  as  they  are  actions, 
but  he  likewise  so  excites  it,  that  it  is  not  possible  but,  thus 
acted  upon,  it  shall  act."     (Witsius.) 

"Moreover,  as  a  second  cause  cannot  act,  unless  acted 
.upon,  and  previously  moved  to  act,  by  the  predetermining 
influence  of  the  first,  so,  in  like  manner,  that  influence  of 
the  first  cause  is  so  efficacious,  as,  that  supposing  it,  the 
second  cause  cannot  but  act."     (lb.) 

"Every  step  of  every  individual  character,  receives  as 
determinate  a  character  from  the  hand  of  God,  as  every 
mile  of  a  planet's  orbit,  or  every  gust  of  wind,  or  every 
wave  of  the  sea,  or  every  particle  of  flying  dust,  or  every 
rivulet  of  flowing  water.  This  power  of  God  knows  no 
exceptions:  it  is  absolute  and  unlimited.  And,  while  it 
embraces  the  vast,  it  carries  its  resistless  influences  to  all 
the  minute  and  unnoticed  diversities  of  existence.  It  reigns 
and  operates  through  all  the  secrecies  of  the  inner  man. 
It  ffives  birth  to  every  purpo&e;  it  gives  impulse  to  every 
desire;  it  gives  shape  and  color  to  every  conception;  it 
wields  an  entire  ascendency  over  every  attribute  of  the 
mind :  and  the  will,  and  the  fancy,  and  the  understanding, 
with  all  the  countless  variety  of  their  hidden  and  fugitive 
operations,  are   submitted  to  it.     It  gives  movement  and 


fHAP.  VIII.]  THE    WILL.  217 

direction  througli  every  one  point  of  our  pilgrimage.  At 
no  moment  of  time  does  it  abandon  us.  It  follows  us  to 
the  hour  of  death,  and  it  carries  us  to  our  place,  and  to 
our  everlasting  destiny  in  the  regions  beyond  it,"  (Dr. 
Chalmers.) 

"A  man  chooses  what  appears  to  be  good,"  says  Mr. 
Dick,  "  and  he  chooses  it  necessarily,  in  this  sense,  that  he 
could  not  do  otherwise.  The  object  of  every  volition  is  to 
please  himself;  and  to  suppose  a  man  to  have  any  other 
object,  that  is,  to  will  any  thing  that  does  not  please  him  in 
itself,  or  in  its  circumstances,  is  absurd:  it  is  to  suppose 
him  to  will  and  not  to  wjll  at  the  same  time,  He  is  per- 
fectly voluntary  in  Ms  choice;  hut  his  willingness  is  the 
consequence  of  the  view  which  his  mind  takes  of  the  object 
presented  to  it,  or  of  his  prevailing  disposition. 

"  Those  actions  are  free  which  are  the  effect  of  volition. 
In  whatever  manner  the  state  of  mind  which  gave  rise  to 
the  volition  has  been  produced,  the  liberty  of  the  agent  is 
neither  greater  nor  less.  It  is  the  will  alone  which  is  to  be 
considered,  and  not  the  means  by  which  it  has  been  deter- 
mined. If  God  foreordained  certain  actions,  and  placed 
men  in  such  circumstances  that  the  actions  would  certainly 
take  place,  agreeably  to  the  laws  of  the  mind,  men  are, 
nevertheless,  moral  agents,  because  they  act  voluntarily, 
and  are  responsible  for  the  actions  which  consent  has  made 
their  own.  Liberty  does  not  consist  in  the  power  of  acting 
or  not  acting,  but  in  acting  from  choice.  The  choice  is 
determined  by  something  in  the  mind  itself,  or  by  some- 
thing external  influencing  the  mind;  but,  whatever  is  the 
cause,  the  choice  makes  the  action  free,  and  the  agent 
accountable.  If  this  definition  of  hberty  be  admitted,  you 
will  perceive  that  it  is  possible  to  reconcile  the  freedom  of 
the  will  with  absolute  decrees;  but  we  have  not  got  rid  of 
every  difficulty.  By  this  theory,  human  actions  appear  to  he 
as  necessary  as  the  motions  of  matter,  accordin^g  to  tlie  laws 

19 


218  THE    WILL.  [chap.   VIII. 

of  gravitation  and  attraction :  and  man  seems  to  be  a 
jnachine,  conscious  of  his  movements,  and  consenting  to  (hem, 
bvt  impelled  by  something  different  from  himself  ^^ 

If  any  thing  further  should  be  esteemed  necessary  upon 
this  point,  a  few  selections  from  Dr.  Emmons,  a  distin- 
cfuished  divine  of  New  England,  and  author  of  an  elaborate 
work  on  theology,  may  supply  the  demand.  He  says, 
"Since  the  Scriptures  ascribe  all  the  actions  of  men  to 
God,  as  well  as  to  themselves,  we  may  justly  conclude 
that  the  Divine  agency  is  as  much  concerned  in  the  had  as 
their  good  actions.  Many  are  disposed  to  make  a  distinc- 
tion here,  and  to  ascribe  only  the  good  actions  of  men  to 
the  Divine  agency,  while  they  ascribe  their  bad  ones  to  the 
Divine  permission.  But  there  appears  no  ground  for  this 
distinction  in  Scripture  or  reason.  Men  are  .no  more  capa- 
ble of  acting  independently  of  God  in  one  instance  than 
another.  If  they  need  any  kind  or  ^  degree  of  Divine 
agency  in  doing  good,  they  need  precisely  the  same  kind 
and  degree  of  Divine  agency  in  doing  evil. 

"But  there  was  no  possible  way  in  which  he  could 
dispose  them  to  act  right  or  wrong,  but  only  by  producing 
right  or  wrong  volitions  in  their  hearts.  And  if  he  pro- 
duced their  bad  as  well  as  good  volitions,  then  his  agency 
was  concerned  in  precisely  the  same  manner  in  their  wrong 
as  in  their  right  actions.  His  agency  making  them  act, 
necessarily  connects  his  agency  and  theirs  together,  and 
lays  a  solid  foundation  for  ascribing  their  actions  either  to 
him  or  them,  or  to  both. 

"  But,  since  mind  cannot  act  any  more  than  matter  can 
move,  without  a  Divine  agency,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that 
men  can  be  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  to  act 
i»t  not  to  act,  independently  of  Divine  influence.  There 
must,  therefore,  be  the  exercise  of  Divine  agency  in  every 
human  action. 

"  By  this  invisible  agency  upon  the  minds,  he  governs  all 


CHAP.  VIII.j  THE    WILL.  219 

their  views,  all  their  thoughts,  all  their  determinations,  and 
all  their  volitions,  just  as  he  pleases,  and  just  according  to 
his  secret  will,  which  they  neither  know  beforehand,  nor 
can  resist,  evade,  or  frustrate." 

"The  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  words  freedom 
and  liberty,  in  common  speech,  is  the  power,  opportunity, 
or  advantage  that  any  one  has  to  do  as  he  pleases ;  or,  in 
other  words,  his  being  free  from  hinderances  or  impedi- 
ments in  the  way  of  doing  or  conducting  in  any  respect  as 
he  wills.  And  the  contrary  to  liberty,  whatever  name  we 
call  that  by,  is  a  person's  being  hindered  or  unable  to 
conduct  as  he  will,  or  being  necessitated  to  do  otherwise. 

"  But  one  thing  more  I  would  observe,  concerning  what 
is  vulgarly  called  liberty,  namely,  that  power  and  oppor- 
tunity for  one  to  do  and  conduct  as  he  will,  or  according 
to  his  choice,  is  all  that  is  meant  by  it,  without  taking  into 
the  meaning  of  the  word  any  thing  of  the  cause  of  that 
choice,  Or  at  all  considering  how  the  person  came  to  have 
such  a  volition — whether  it  was  caused  by  some  external 
motive,  or  internal,  habitual  bias — whether  it  was  deter- 
mined by  some  internal,  antecedent  volition,  or  whether 
it  happened  without  a  cause — whether  it  was  necessarily 
connected  with  something  foregoing,  or  not  connected. 
Let  the  person  come  by  his  choice  any  how,  yet,  if  he  is 
able,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  way  to  hinder  his  pur- 
suing and  executing  his  will,  the  man  is  perfectly  free, 
according  to  the  primary  and  common  notion  of  freedom." 
(Edwards  on  the  Will,  p.  12.) 

"That  every  act  of  the  will  has  some  cause,  and,  con- 
sequently, has  a  necessary  connection  with  its  cause,  and 
so  is  necessary,  a  necessity  of  connection  and  consequence 
is  evident  by  this,  that  every  act  of  the  will  whatsoever  is 
excited  by  some  motive. 

"But  if  every  act  of  the  will  is  excited  by  a  motive, 
then  that  motive  is  the  cause  of  the  act.     If  the  acts  of 


220  THE    WILL.  fCHAP.  VIII 

the  "vvill  are  excited  by  motives,  then  motives  are  the  causi 
of  their  being  excited,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  the  cause 
of  their  existence.  And  if  so,  the  existence  of  the  acts  of 
tlie  will  is  properly  the  effects  of  their  motives.  Motives  dc 
nothing,  as  motives  or  inducements,  but  by  their  influence ; 
and  so  much  as  is  done  by  their  influence  is  the  effecl 
of  them.  For  that  is  the  motive  of  an  effect,  something 
that  is  brought  to  pass  by  the  influence  of  something  else. 
And  if  volitions  are  properly  the  effects  of  motives,  then 
they  are  necessarily  connected  with  their  motives — every 
effect  and  event  being,  as  was  proved  before,  necessarily 
connected  with  that  which  is  the  proper  ground  and  reason 
of  its  existence.  Thus  it  is  manifest,  that  volition  is  neces- 
sary, and  is  not  from  any  self- determining  power  in  the 
will;  the  volition  which  is  caused  by  previous  motive  and 
inducement,  is  not  caused  by  the  will  exercising  a  sovereign 
power  over  itself,  to  cause,  determine,  and  excite  volitions 
in  itself."     (Edwards  on  the  Will,  pp.  26,  27.) 

The  view  given  in  this  quotation,  is  the  view  elaborately 
sustained  in  Mr.  Edwards'  celebrated  work  on  the  will. 
The  whole  work  is  based,  for  the  defense  of  this  view, 
against  Arminian  notions  of  liberty.  It  will  not  be  neces- 
sary to  quote  more  largely  upon  this  point,  as  our  simple 
object,  in  these  quotations,  is  to  learn  the  view  of  the 
authors  referred  to,  without  examining  their  particular 
merits. 

"  The  liberty  of  a  moral  agent  consists  in  the  power  of 
actino"  according  to  his  choice ;  and  those  actions  are  free 
which  are  performed  without  any  external  compulsion  or 
restraint,  in  consequence  of  the  determination  of  his  owti 
mind. 

"The  various  changes  upon  matter,  which  are  the  events 
of  the  natural  world,  arise  from  a  succession  of  operations, 
every  one  of  which,  being  the  effect  of  something  previous, 
becomes,  in  its  turn,  the  cause  of  something  which  follows. 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE    WILL.  221 

Tlie  particular  determinations  of  mind,  which  may  be  con- 
sidered as  events  arising  in  the  moral  world,  have  their 
causes,  also,  which  we  are  accustomed  to  call  motives,  that 
is,  inducements  to  act  in  a  particular  manner,  which  arise 
from  the  objects  presented  to  the  mind,  and  the  views  of 
those  objects  A\hich  the  mind  entertains.  The  causes  of 
the  events  in  the  natural  world  are  efficient  causes,  which 
act  upon  matter ;  the  causes  of  events  in  the  moral  world 
are  final  causes,  with  reference  to  which  the  mind,  in  which 
the  action  originates,  proceeds  voluntarily  and  deliberately 
to  put  forth  its  own  powers.  But  the  direction  of  the 
action  toward  its  final  cause  is  not  less  certain,  than  the 
direction  of  the  motion  produced  in  an  inert,  passive  sub- 
stance, by  the  form  impressed  upon  it,  which  is  the  effi- 
cient cause  of  the  motion."     (Hill,  pp.  551,  552.) 

"  It  is  essential  to  a  soul  to  have  a  moral  disposition,  good 
or  bad,  or  a  mixture  of  both ;  and  according  to  what  is  the 
prevaihng  moral  disposition  of  the  soul  must  be  the  moral 
actings  of  the  will.  [Query :  How  did  a  holy  nature  make 
an  unholy  volition?]  Hence,  there  is  a  great  difference  in 
regard  to  the  freedom  of  the  will  in  the  different  states  of 
man.  In  the  state  of  innocence,  the  natural  inchnation  of 
man's  will  was  only  to  good ;  but  it  was  liable  to  change 
through  the  influence  of  temptations,  and,  therefore,  free 
to  choose  evil.  In  his  natural  corrupt  state,  man  freely 
chooses  evil;  and  he  cannot  do  otherwise,  being  under 
bondage  of  sin.  In  the  state  of  grace,  he  has  a  free  will, 
partly  to  good  and  partly  to  evil.  In  this  state  there  is  a 
mixture  of  two  opposite  moral  dispositions ;  and  as  some- 
times the  one  and  sometimes  the  other  prevails,  so  the  will 
sometimes  chooses  that  which  is  good,  and  sometimes  that 
which  is  evil."     (Expositor  of  the  Confession,  p.  137.) 

From  the  above  quotations  we  make  the  following  de- 
ductions : 

1.  Calvinists  believe  that  every  volition,  or  choice,  is  the 


222  TfiE    WILL.  [chap.  VIIL 

necessary  result  of  an  influence  exerted  upon  the  mind, 
through  the  agency  of  motives.  In  other  words,  they  be- 
lieve that  such  is  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind,  that 
it  cannot  will  at  all  without  a  motive,  and  that,  when  it 
does  will,  it  cannot  will  otherwise  under  the  circumstances, 
because  the  particular  exercise  of  will  is  the  necessary 
effect  of  the  motives  then  operating  upon  the  mind. 

2.  They  believe  that  free  agency  consists,  not  in  the 
power  to  originate  and  govern  volitions,  but  in  the  power 
one  has  to  do  according  to  his  volitions. 

AVe  insist  that  this  view  of  the  subject  involves  fatalism, 
and  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  free  agency  of  man. 
And  this  must  appear  with  the  slightest  examination. 

The  doctrine  is,  that,  when  a  man  makes  a  choice,  or  puts 
forth  an  exercise  of  will,  he  cannot,  under  the  circum- 
stances, make  any  other  choice ;  the  motives  presented  to 
his  mind  are  such  as  to  necessitate  this  particular  choice, 
and  to  render  any  other  impossible.  ISow,  is  it  not  manifest, 
that  this  renders  man  the  victim  of  inexorable  necessity. 
What  he  chooses  he  is  coerced  to  choose,  without  the 
possibility  of  an  opposite  choice,  by  irresistible  power. 
What  matters  it,  thoiigh  you  say  he  acts  from  choice,  or 
volunlarily,  and  is,  therefore,  free?  Is  it  not  certain  that 
choice  itself  is  forced  upon  him,  and,  hence,  that  he  is  not 
free? 

I  cannot  do  better  here,  than  to  quote  from  the  distin- 
guished Dr.  Beecher :  "  Choice,  in  its  very  nature,  implies 
the  possibility  of  a  different,  or  contrary  election,  to  that 
which  is  made.  There  is  always  an  alternative  to  that 
which  the  mind  decides  on,  with  the  consciousness  of 
choosing  either.  In  the  simplest  form  of  alternative,  it  is 
to  choose  or  not  to  choose,  in  a  given  way;  but,  in  most 
cases,  the  alternatives  he  between  two  or  many  objects  of 
choice  presented  to  the  mind ;  and,  if  you  deny  to  mind 
this  alternative  power — if  you  insist,  that,  by  a  constitution 


CHAP.   VIII.J  THE    WILL.  223 

anterior  to  choice,  of  the  nature  of  natural  cause  to  its 
effect,  the  choice  which  takes  place  can  come,  and  cannot 
but  come,  into  being,  and  that  none  other  than  this  can,  by 
any  possibility,  exist,  you  have  as  perfect  a  fatality  of  choke 
as  ever  Pagan,  or  Atheist,  or  Antinomian,  conceived.  The 
question  of  free  will  is  not  whether  man  chooses — this  is 
notorious — none  deny  it;  but  whether  his  choice  is  free,  as 
opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity — as  opposed  to  the  laws  of 
instinct  and  natural  causation — whether  it  is  the  act  of  a 
mind  so  qualified  for  choice,  as  to  decide  between  alterna- 
tives, uncaused  by  the  energy  of  a  natural  cause  to  its 
effect — whether  it  is  the  act  of  an  agent,  who  might  have 
abstained  from  the  choice  he  made,  and  made  one  which  he 
did  not.  To  speak  of  a  choice  as  being  free,  which  is  pro- 
duced by  the  laws  of  natural  necessity,  and  which  cannot 
but  be  when  and  what  it  is — more,  that  the  effects  of 
natural  causes  can  govern  the  time,  and  manner,  and  quali- 
ties of  their  being — is  a  perversion  of  language. 

"  To  illustrate  the  fatality  of  an  agency,  in  which  choice 
is  the  unavoidable  effect  of  a  natural,  constitutional,  and 
coercive  causation,  let  us  suppose  an  extended  manufcictory, 
all  whose  wheels,  like  those  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  were  inspired 
with  intelligence  and  instinct  with  life — some  crying  holy ! 
holy!  as  they  rolled,  and  others  aloud  blaspheming  God — 
all  voluntary  in  their  praises  and  blasphemies;  but  tlie 
volitions,  like  the  motions  of  the  wheels  themselves,  pro- 
'duced  by  the  great  water-wheel  and  the  various  bands, 
which  kept  the  motion,  and  the  adoration,  and  the  blasphemy 
agoing:  how  much  accountability  would  attach  to  these 
praises  and  blasphemies  produced  by  the  laws  of  water- 
power?  and  what  would  it  avail  to  say,  as  a  reason  for 
justifying  God  in  punishing  these  blasphemies,  0,  but  they 
are  free,  they  are  voluntary,  they  choose  to  blaspheme  ? 
Truly,  indeed,  they  blaspheme  voluntarily ;  but  their  choice 
to  do  so  is  necessary  in  the  same  sense  that  the  motion  of 


224  THE    WILL.  [cIIaP.   VIII. 

the  great  wheel,  which  the  water,  by  the  power  of  gravity, 
turns,  is  necessary,  and  just  as  destitute  of  accountabihty. 

"  Choice,  without  the  possibihty  of  other  or  contrary 
choice,  is  the  immemorial  doctrine  of  fatalism;  the  theory 
of  choice,  that  it  is  what  it  is  by  a  natural,  constitutional 
necessity,  and  that  a  man  cannot  help  choosing  what  he 
does  choose,  and  can  b}'-  no  possibility  choose  otherwise,  is 
the  doctrine  of  fatalism  in  all  its  forms." 

So  writes  one  of  the  most  venerable  and  learned  living 
Presbyterian  ministers,  who  has  the  boldness  to  think  and 
speak  his  own  sentiments.  He  sustains  this  view  with  an 
amount  of  learning  worthy  of  himself  and  the  subject. 

The  same  point  has  been  thus  stated  by  Jouffroy,  a  dis- 
tinguished French  writer:  **The  principal  propositions 
the  supporters  of  this  system,  are  as  follows:  in  the  first 
place,  they  assert  as  a  fact,  that  every  volition  has  a  motive ; 
in  the  second  place,  they  say,  that  if  the  motive  which  acts 
upon  the  vnW  is  a  simple  and  single  one,  the  motive  will 
necessarily  determine  it ;  but  if  there  are  several  motives 
operating  at  the  same  time,  the  strongest  will  determine  it. 
Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  argument  of  the  friends  of  this 
system."     (P.  96.) 

I  have  riot  thought  it  necessary,  in  this  connection,  to 
refer  to  the  use  of  a  variety  of  terms  commonly  incorpo- 
rated in  the  controversy  about  the  will.  The  only  point  we 
have  deemed  important  to  particularize,  we  find  in  the 
proposition,  that  "  motives  are  causes  of  which  volitions  are 
effects."  Upon  this  simple  proposition,  the  whole  contro- 
versy turns.  If  it  is  true,  the  Calvinian  view  of  the  will  is 
true.  If  it  is  false,  the  Calvinian  view  of  the  will  is  false. 
]t  forms  the  direct  issue. 

It  is  presumed  upon  this  point  there  will  be  no  quibbling — 
no  equivocation.  We  have  already  shown  that  the  view 
thus  stated,  results  consequentially  from  the  doctrine  of 
decrees,  by  showing  that,  if  God  decreed  whatsoever  comes 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE    WILL.  225 

i,o  pass,  he  must  have  decreed  what  each  distinct  volition 
should  be;  and  his  decree  being  the  necessity  or  necessi- 
tating cause  of  the  thing  decreed,  it  was,  therefore,  the 
cause  of  volitions.  This  we  have  shown  before  conse- 
quentially ;  and  now,  from  a  more  direct  examination  of  the 
doctrine  of  will,  Ave  learn  that  what  was  then  a  logical 
deduction,  is,  in  fact,  a  matter  of  faith;  the  volition  is 
determined  by  the  force  of  motives — motives  are  arranged 
by  the  providence  of  God — and  so  the  decree  of  God,  with 
respect  to  volitions,  is  executed,  or  brought  about  by  his 
providence. 

This  view  is  given  as  the  most  moderate  and  least  objec- 
tionable. Many  Calvinists  have,  indeed,  asserted  that  voli 
tions  are  produced  by  the  direct  agency  of  God,  and  it  might 
be  shown  that  such  is  a  legitimate  consequence  of  other 
points  of  the  system;  but  we  select  this  as  the  explanation  of 
the  more  moderate  school,  and  the  now  prevailing  sentiment 
of  Calvinistic  Churches. 

Calvinists  become  angry  with  us  when  we  accuse  them 
of  denying  the  free  agency  of  man.  Now,  that  there  may 
be  no  mistake  here,  we  call  attention  to  this  point.  Calvin- 
ists do  believe  in  free  agency,  according  to  their  definition : 
that  is,  "  the  power  or  opportunity  any  one  has  to  do  as  he 
pleases."  They  do  beheve  that  a  man  can  do  as  he  pleases 
when  he  is  not  prevented ;  but  they  do  not  believe  that  a  mar 
has  any  control  over  his  choices— they  do  not  believe  that 
he  is  able  to  choose  differently  from  what  he  does — they  do 
not  think  that  such  a  power  is  necessary  to  constitute  free 
agency.  Now,  we  shall  show  that  all  the  consequences  of 
sheer  fatalism  are  included  in  their  doctrine  and  definition  of 
freedom ;  that,  though  they  believe  in  what  they  are 
pleased  to  call  free  agency,  yet  they  do  not,  in  fact,  include 
the  idea  of  actual  liberty  therein,  but  leave  it  embarrassed 
with  inexorable  necessity. 

That  I  have  stated  their  views  in  the  least  objectionable 


226  THE    WILL.  [chap.  VIIJ. 

form,  in  the  most  moderate  tone,  I  think  must  be  admitted 
by  all  candid  judges:  it  only  remains,  therefore,  that  I 
proceed  to  point  out  consequences,  and  then  it  will  be  for 
my  readers  to  decide,  whether  the  consequences  thus  de- 
duced do  actually  flow  or  not. 

1.  And,  first,  I  object  to  this  doctrine  of  the  will,  that  it 
is  directly  opposed  to  the  consciousness  of  mankind.  Here, 
again,  I  will  employ  the  language  of  the  venerable  Dr. 
Beecher:  *  Of  nothing  are  men  more  thoroughly  informed, 
or  more  competent  to  judge  unerringly,  than  in  respect  to 
their  voluntary  action,  as  coerced  or  free.  Testimony  may 
mislead,  and  the  sense,  by  disease,  may  deceive,  but  con- 
sciousness is  the  end  of  all  controversy ;  its  evidence  cannot 
be  increased,  and,  if  it  be  distrusted,  there  is  no  alternative 
but  imiversal  skepticism.  Our  consciousness  of  the  mode 
of  mental  action  in  choice,  as  uncoerced  and  free,  equals 
our  consciousness  of  existence  itself;  and  the  man  who 
doubts  either,  gives  indications  of  needing  medical  treat- 
ment, instead  of  argument.  When  a  man  does  wrong,  and 
then  reflects  upon  the  act,  he  feels  that  he  was  free,  and  is 
responsible ;  and  so  when  he  looks  forward  to  a  future  action. 

"And  because  this  consciousness  is  in  men,  you  never 
can  reason  them  out  of  a  sense  of  their  accoimtability. 
Many  have  tried  it,  but  none  have  eflectually,  or  for  any 
length  of  time,  succeeded ;  and  the  reason  is  plain,  there  is 
nothing  which  the  mind  is  more  conscious  of,  than  the  fact 
of  its  own  voluntary  action  with  the  power  of  acting  right 
or  wrong :  the  mind  sees,  and  knows,  and  regrets,  when  it 
has  done  wrong.  Take  away  this  consciousness,  and  there 
is  no  remorse.  You  cannot  produce  remorse,  as  long  as  a 
man  feels  that  his  act  was  not  his  own — that  it  was  not 
voluntary,  but  the  efl'ect  of  compulsion :  he  may  dread  the 
consequences,  but  you  never  can  make  him  feel  remorse  for 
the  act  on  its  own  account.  This  is  the  reason  why  men 
who  have  reasoned  away  the  existence  of  God,  and  argued 


CHAP.  VIII."]  THE    WILL.  227 

to  prove  that  the  soul  is  nothing  but  matter,  know,  as  soon 
as  the}'  reflect,  that  all  their  reasoning  is  false.  There  is  a 
lamp  within  they  cannot  extinguish;  and,  after  all  their 
metaphysics,  they  are  conscious  that  they  act  freely,  and 
that  there  is  a  God  to  whom  they  are  accountable;  and 
hence  it  is,  that  when  they  cross  the  ocean,  and  a  storm 
comes  on,  and  they  expect  to  go  to  the  bottom,  they  begin 
straightway  to  pray  to  God  and  confess  their  sins. 

"The  natural  impossibihty  of  choosing  otherwise  than 
we  do  choose,  is  contrary,  then,  not  only  to  the  common 
sense  and  intuitive  perceptions  of  men,  but  contrary  to  their 
internal  consciousness.  There  is  a  deep  and  universal 
consciousness  in  all  men,  as  to  the  freedom  of  choice ;  and 
in  denying  this,  you  reverse  God's  constitution  of  man — 
you  assume  that  God  gave  a  deceptive  constitution  to  mind, 
or  a  deceptive  consciousness." 

Upon  this  point,  Mahan,  in  his  excellent  little  work  on 
the  will — a  complete  refutation  of  Edwards — says,  "We 
may  pile  demonstration  upon  demonstration  in  favor  of  the 
doctrine  of  necessity,  still,  as  the  mind  falls  back  upon  the 
spontaneous  affirmations  of  its  own  intelligence,  it  finds,  in 
the  depths  of  its  inner  being,  a  higher  demonstration  of  the 
fact,  that  that  doctrine  is,  and  must  be,  false — that  man  is 
not  the  agent  which  that  doctrine  affirms  him  to  be." 

It  is  still  more  elegantly  expressed  by  JoufFroy :  he  says, 
**  If  there  is  one  familiar  feeling  of  which  we  are  distinctly 
and  vividly  conscious,  it  surely  is  that  which  we  experience 
when  we  make  a  choice.  Whatever  the  force  of  the  motive 
which  we  obey,  we  yet  perceive  a  wide  distinction  between 
the  influence  of  this  motive,  and  any  thing  which  can  be 
called  constraint.  Indeed,  we  feel  distinctly,  that  in  yield- 
ing to  this  motive,  that  is  to  say,  in  resolving  in  conformity 
with  it,  we  are  entirely  able  not  to  form  this  resolve.  If, 
for  instance,  when  standing  at  a  window,  I  determine  not  to 
throw  myself  into  the  street,  I  feel  that  it  depends  wholly 


228  T5IE    WILL.  [chap.  VIH. 

upon  myself  to  form  an  opposite  determination;  only,  I 
say,  I  should  then  be  a  fool ;  and  being  rational,  I  remain 
where  I  am.  But  that  I  am  free  to  be  a  fool,  and  to  throw 
myself  down,  is  to  me  most  evident.  If  any  of  my  audi- 
ence are  capable  of  confounding  in  their  minds  the  fact, 
that  a  bilHard  ball  on  a  table  is  put  in  motion  by  a  stroke, 
with  the  fact,  that  a  volition  is  produced  in  my  mind  when  I 
seek  to  know  what  is  my  reasonable  course  of  conduct,  and 
think  I  discover  it — if  there  are  any  here,  who  can  see  a  sim- 
ilarity between  the  action  of  one  ball  on  another,  and  the  in- 
fluence of  a  motive  on  my  volition,  then  have  I  nothing  more 
to  say.  But  no  one  can  imagine  a  similarity  between  the 
two ;  at  least,  no  one  who  has  not  taken  sides  on  the  ques- 
tion, and  given  up  his  mind  to  some  system,  of  which  it 
consequence  that  some  necessity  must  control  our  volition 
and  acts,  can  confound  two  facts  in  their  nature  so  dissimilar, 
as  the  action  of  one  ball  upon  another,  and  the  influence 
of  a  motive  on  the  determinations  of  my  will.  The  whole 
question — and  I  beg  you  again  to  remark  it — depends  upon 
the  fact,  whether  you  know  that  the  influence  which  the 
motive  exercises  over  the  will  is  a  constraining  force  or  not. 
For  myself,  I  say,  that  my  inward  feeling  answers  in  the 
negative,  and  that,  under  the  influence  of  all  motives,  I 
retain,  in  every  case,  a  distinct  consciousness  of  a  power  of 
acting  in  opposition  to  what  they  advise  and  direct. 

**  When  I  attempt  thus  to  bring  argument  for  the  sake 
of  proving  that  we  are  free,  and  that  motives  do  not  exer- 
cise a  controlling  force  over  us,  I  feel  as  uncomfortable  as 
if  I  were  answering  one  who  should  deny  our  power  of 
movmg  or  walking.  To  employ  argument  in  refuting  such 
an  opinion,  seems  like  some  game  of  logic;  for  I  have  to 
oppose  to  this  opinion  a  plain,  decisive  fact — a  fact,  the 
consciousness  of  which  I  can  never  lose,  and  which  is  m 
accordance  with  common  forms  of  speech  in  all  languages, 
with  the  universal  faith,  and  with  the  established  practices 


CHAP,  VIII.j  THE    WILL.  229 

of  mankind :  and  I  smile  to  think,  that  when  I  can  utterly 
destroy  the  system  of  necessity,  by  merely  bringing  it 
in  conflict  with  this  fact,  I  should  be  seeking  superfluous 
trains  of  reasoning  to  oppose  it  with.  This  fact,  which  we 
cannot  escape  from,  is  one  which  consciousness  bears  wit- 
ness to,  when  placed  under  the  influence  of  the  strongest 
possible  motive,  say,  self-preservation.  I  feel,  distinctly, 
that  it  depends  upon  myself,  and  only  upon  myself,  whether 
I  shall  yield  to  or  I'esist  this  motive,  and  do  or  refrain  from 
what  it  recommends.  I  can  conceive,  indeed,  that  a  man 
may  deny  this  evident  fact ;  for  to  what  length  of  delusion 
will  not  the  spirit  of  theory  and  system  carry  us  ?  But  I 
will  ask  him,  am  I  not  justified  in  not  admitting  this  pecu- 
liar opinion  of  a  small  body  of  men,  when  I  see  that  tven 
they  act  and  speak  as  if  they  agreed  in  my  opinion — when 
I  see  the  most  logical  among  them  form  a  scheme  of  ethics, 
and  give  rules  for  conduct — when  I  find  in  every  tongue 
the  words,  right  and  wrong,  punishment  and  reward,  merit 
and  demerit — when  the  whole  human  race  agree  in  being 
indignant  against  him  who  does  wrong,  and  in  admiring  him 
who  does  right — when,  indeed,  there  is  not  an  event  in 
human  life  which  does  not  imply,  necessarily,  and  in  a 
thousand  diff'erent  ways,  this  very  freedom  of  will  of  which 
I  feel  so  sensibly  and  deeply  conscious  ?  I  have  certainly 
8orae  right  to  feel  strengthened  in  my  opinion  by  so  many 
testimonies  to  its  truth,  and  by  its  perfect  accordance 
with  what  I  see  about  me.  And  were  there  no  stronger 
objections  against  the  doctrine  which  denies  human  free- 
dom, than  this  universal  contradiction  which  it  off"ers  to  all 
human  belief,  conduct,  and  language,  to. all  judgments  and 
feelings,  it  would,  even  then,  be  more  completely  answered 
than  it  deserves." 

Thus  we  see  that  the  Calvinian  view  of  the  will  is  op- 
posed to  the  consciousness  of  mankind.  When  it  is  stated, 
every  man  feels  within  himself  the  consciousness  that  it  is 


230  THE    WILL.  [chap.  VIIl. 

false — that  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  his  constitution.  It 
may  be  mystified  and  drowned  with  bewildering  terms,  and 
encumbered  with  intricate  speculations,  and  burdened  with 
senseless  distinctions,  but  deep  beneath  it  all,  the  plain 
man  and  the  scholar,  all  men  alike,  feel  a  consciousness 
that  the  will  is  essentially  free — that  vohtions  are  not 
necessitated.  This  consciousness  of  mankind  is  not  only 
detected  by  each  man  in  his  own  bosom,  but  it  is  out- 
wardly manifested  and  expressed,  involuntarily  and,  in  a 
great  variety  of  ways,  constantly  by  others ;  as,  for  mstance, 
in  the  universal  conviction  of  mankind,  that  their  former 
course  of  conduct  might  have  been  different  from  what  is. 
I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  there  is  not  a  person  on  earth 
who  has  not  this  conviction  resting  upon  his  mind,  in 
respect  to  his  own  past  life.  It  is  important  to  analyze 
this  conviction,  in  order  to  mark  distinctly  its  bearing 
upon  our  present  inquiries.  This  conviction  is  not  the 
belief,  that,  if  our  circumstances  had  been  different,  we 
might  have  acted  differently  from  what  we  did;  but  a 
firm  persuasion,  that,  under  precisely  the  same  circum- 
stances, our  volition  and  act  might  have  been  the  precise 
contrary  of  what  they  were.  This  conviction,  that,  with- 
out any  change  of  circumstances,  our  past  course  of  life 
might  have  been  different  from  what  it  was,  rests  upon 
every  mind  on  earth,  in  which  the  remembrance  of  the  past 
dwells.  Now  this  universal  conviction  is  totally  false — and 
when,  then,  can  consciousness  be  trusted  ? — if  the  doctrine 
of  necessity  is  true.  The  doctrine  of  the  liberty  of  the  will 
must  be  true,  or  the  universal  intelligence  is  a  perpetual 
falsehood. 

In  reference  to  all  deliberate  determinations  of  the  will 
in  time  past,  the  remembrance  of  them  is  attended  with 
a  consciousness  the  most  positive,  that,  in  the  same 
identical  circumstances,  determinations  precisely  opposite 
•night  have  been  originated.     Let  any  one  recall  any  such 


CHAP,  VIII.J  THE    WILt,.  231 

determination,  and  the  consciousness  of  a  power  to  have 
determined  differently,  will  be  just  as  distinctly  recalled  as 
the  act  itself.  He  cannot  be  more  sm-e  that  he  has  willed 
at  all,  than  he  will  be  that  he  might  have  willed  dif- 
ferently. But  all  these  affirmations  of  consciousness  are 
false,  if  the  doctrine  of  liberty  is  not  true. 

The  existence  of  such  a  consciousness  is  further  evinced 
in  the  condemnation  or  approbation  we  exercise  with  re- 
spect to  other  men,  in  view  of  their  determinations  and 
acts.  These  are  always  accompanied  with  the  conviction, 
arising  from  the  consciousness  of  human  freedom,  that 
they  might,  under  the  circumstances,  have  acted  and  de- 
termined differently.  And  if  this  conviction  could  be  dis- 
placed, we  would  no  more  condemn  or  approve  them  than 
we  do  an  avalanche  or  earthquake,  rain  or  sunshine. 

But,  further :  not  only  with  respect  to  the  past,  but  with 
respect  to  the  present,  also,  we  are  now  distinctly  con- 
scious, that,  with  regard  to  the  particular  object  submitteil 
to  our  minds,  under  the  identical  circumstances  existing, 
any  one  of  a  number  of  different  determinations  is  equall}^ 
or  as  certainly  possible.  Every  man  is  as  conscious  of  this 
as  he  is  of  his  existence. 

2.  I  object  to  this  doctrine  of  the  will,  further,  that  it 
involves  sheer  fatalism — universal  necessity.  This  point  is 
thus  expressed  by  Mahan:  "If  this  doctrine  is  true,  it  is 
demonstrably  evident,  that  in  no  instance,  real  or  sup- 
posable,  have  men  any  power  whatever,  to  will  or  to  act 
differently  from  what  they  do.  The  connection  between 
the  determinations  of  the  will  and  their  consequents,  ex- 
ternal and  internal,  is  absolutely  necessary.  Constituted 
as  T  now  am,  if  I  will,  for  example,  a  particular  motion  of 
my  hand  or  arm,  no  other  movement,  in  the  circumstances, 
was  possible,  and  this  movement  could  not  but  take  place. 
The  same  holds  true  of  all  consequents,  external  or  in- 
terna] of  all  acts  of  the  will.     Let  us  now  suppose  that 


232  THE    WILL.  [chap.  VIII. 

tliese  acts  of  the  will  are  themselves  the  necessary  conse- 
quenis  of  the  circumstances  in  which  they  originate.  In 
wha*  conceivable  sense,  then,  have  men,  in  the  circum- 
stances in  which  Providence  places  them,  power  either  to 
Avill  or  to  act  differently  from  what  they  do  ?  Here,  then, 
is  absolute,  universal  necessity.  The  motive  must  produce 
the  volition ;  the  volition  must  produce  the  act ;  and  all  the 
circumstances  taken  together  constitute  the  motive." 

Well,  now,  the  creature  can  have  no  control  of  the 
motives;  that  is,  he  cannot  prearrange  motives  to  produce 
in  him  certain  volitions ;  because,  to  determine  to  make 
Ruch  a  prearrangement  is  a  volition,  and  this  volition 
cannot  take  place  without  a  motive  to  produce  it;  so  he 
is  utterly,  and  without  mitigation,  doomed  to  the  despotism 
of  such  motives  as  exist,  bringing  in  their  train,  as  cause 
produces  effects,  other  motives,  and  these  producing  their 
legitimate  exercises  of  will.  Fate  runs  through  all.  Every 
determination  and  act  is  immediately  connected  with  a  cause 
foregoing,  which  produces  it  as  a  necessary  effect. 

3.  It  follows  from  this  system,  not  only  that  all  things 
are  necessary,  but,  also,  that  each  individual  thing  is  the 
best  possible  in  its  place  and  relations.  God  is  the  first 
mover — the  first  link  in  this  endless  chain  of  causation. 
From  him,  ultimately,  all  motion  proceeds.  All  volitions 
and  acts,  therefore,  have  for  their  ultimate  cause  infinite 
Wisdom.  All  that  has  been,  all  that  is,  all  that  will  be, 
are  connected  by  an  absolute  necessity  with  the  same  great 
Source.  There  may  be  a  million  intermediate,  transmitting 
links,  but,  through  all,  they  trace  back  to  the  First  Cause. 
It  would  be  the  height  of  absurdity  to  suppose  it  possible 
for  any  thing  to  be  different  from  what  it  is,  or  to  suppose 
that  any  change  could  make  any  thing  better  than  what  it 
is;  for  all  that  is,  is  by  absolute  necessity;  and  all  that  is, 
is  just  what  and  when  infinite  Wisdom  has  made  it  and  dis- 
posed of  it.     No  difference  what  it  is,  therefore — whether 


CHAr.  VIII.  THE    WILL.  233 

rnui-der,  incest,  idolatry,  or  wliat  not — it  is  the  best  thing 
in  that  place,  or  the  great  First  Cause  is  at  fault.  If  thai 
which  we  call  evil  in  reality  be  evil,  then  it  must  be  both 
necessary  evil,  and  evil  having  its  origin  in  infinite  Wisdom. 
It  is  vain  to  say  that  man  is  the  agent,  in  the  strict  accepta- 
tion of  the  word ;  he  is — he  can  be  no  more  than  one  of 
the  links  through  which  causation  is  traced  back  to  God. 
Is  not  this  fearful  ? 

4.  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  man  cannot  be  responsible 
or  accountable  for  either  his  volitions  or  acts — cannot  be 
subject  of  praise  or  blame.  God  himself  is  the  only  re- 
sponsible being  in  the  universe,  as  all  causation — agency 
proper — terminates  in  him.  This  is  so  manifest,  it  is  ques- 
tionable whether  any  man,  in  the  possession  of  his  rea- 
son, can  sincerely  doubt  it.  The  idea  of  obligation,  of 
merit  and  demerit,  and  of  the  consequent  propriety  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  are  chimeras.  To  conceive  of  a 
being  deserving  praise  or  blame  for  volitions  or  actions, 
which  occurred  under  circumstances  in  which  none  other 
were  possible,  and  in  which  these  could  not  possibly  but 
be,  is  absolutely  impossible.  The  human  mind  has  not 
power  to  entertain  such  a  conception.  Let  any  one  under- 
take it,  and  he  will  find  it  as  impossible  as  to  conceive  of 
the  annihilation  of  space,  or  of  an  event  occurring  without 
a  cause.  Human  intelligence,  as  the  consciousness  of  every 
one  of  my  readers  will  attest,  is  incapable  of  aflirming  such 
a  contradiction. 

The  ground  of  blameworthiness  is  not  only  the  percep- 
tion of  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  and  the 
conviction  that  the  right  ought  to  be  done,  but  the  posses- 
sion of  a  power  to  do  the  right,  and  refrain  from  the 
v/rong.  But  if  every  volition  is  fixed  by  absolute  necessity, 
then  neither  can  the  individual  be  supposed  to  have  power 
t.o  do  otherwise  than  he  actually  does,  nor,  all  things  con- 
sidered, can  it  be,  supposed  there  could  have  been,  at  that 
20 


234  THE    WILL.  [chap.  VIIl. 

present  moment  any  other  volition.  The  voHtion  is  fixed, 
and  fixed  by  infinite  Wisdom.  We  cannot  escape  from  this 
difficulty,  by  perpetually  ringing  the  changes  of,  "He  can 
if  he  will,"  "he  could  if  he  would;"  the  thing  is,  he  cannot, 
will — he  has  no  power  competent  to  do  the  very  thing 
which  is  required,  and,  hence,  cannot  be  responsible. 

Shall  it  be  said,  "  that,  in  looking  for  the  ground  of  ac- 
countability, men  never  go  beyond  the  fact  of  voluntariness ; 
they  look  not  for  the  cause  of  volitions  themselves;  if  the 
deed,  whether  good  or  evil,  be  voluntary,  that  satisfies? 
This  is,  no  doubt,  true;  we  are  satisfied  that  men  are 
accountable  for  acts  which  are  voluntary;  but  this  is  be- 
cause all  men  include,  unfailingly,  both  in  their  theory  and 
consciousness,  the  supposition  of  powers  of  agency  unhin- 
dered and  uncoerced  by  any  fatal  necessity.  But  convince 
them  that  choice  is  an  eflfect,  over  which  mind  has  no  more 
control  than  over  drops  of  rain,  and  the  common  sense  of 
the  world  would  revolt  against  the  accountability  of  choice, 
merely  because  it  was  choice."  The  view  of  the  will  here 
offered,  is,  beyond  all  question,  as  diametrically  opposed 
to  accountability  as  it  is  to  freedom ;  indeed,  by  the  common 
consent  of  mankind — a  consent  founded  in  consciousness 
itself — these  must  stand  or  fall  together,  and  cannot  exist 
separately. 

5.  But  if  the  foregoing  be  true,  then  men  cannot  be 
required  to  do  difi'erently  from  what  they  do ;  for  to  require 
this,  is  to  require  an  absolute  impossibility.  Any  law  or 
lawgiver  making  such  requirement,  is  the  perfection  of 
tyranny.  There  can  be  no  cruelty,  no  oppression,  more 
unreasonable,  more  unjust,  thaii  this.  To  imagine  it,  is  blas- 
phemously to  cast  inconceivable  odium  on  the  character  of 
God.  Dr.  Beecher  has  well  said  upon  this  point,  "  God  re- 
quires of  his  subjects  only  conformity  to  himself — to  his  own 
moral  excellences — but  he  admits  of  no  obligation  on  him- 
self to  work  impossibilities ;  and  does  he  impose  obligations 


OHAP.  VIII.]  THE    WILL.  236 

on  his  subjects  which  he  himself  refuses  to  assume  ?  He 
does  not  regard  it  as  an  excellence  in  himself  to  work 
impossibilities ;  does  he  command  it  as  a  virtue  in  his  sub- 
jects? He  has  no  desire  to  work  impossibilities  himself, 
why  should  he  desire  it  in  his  creatures?  He  has  never 
tried,  and  never  will  try,  to  work  an  impossibility ;  and  why 
should  he  command  his  creatures  to  do  what  he  neither 
desires  nor  tries  to  accomplish?  He  cannot  work  impossi- 
bilities ;  and  how  can  it  be  thought  that  he  will  require  of 
his  creatures  that  which  he  himself  cannot  do?'^  Such  is 
one  of  the  fearful  consequences  to  which  this  scheme  inev- 
itably leads.  Either  God  cannot  require  men  to  do  differ- 
ently from  what  they  do,  and,  if  this  be  so,  then  he  does 
not  require  them  to  obey  his  laws;  for  these  laws  en- 
join a  different  conduct :  or,  if  God  does  require  men  to  do 
differently,  then  he  requires  them  to  do  what  is  absolutely 
impossible — to  do  what  Omnipotence  cannot  do — nay,  to 
resist  and  overcome  Omnipotence;  for  it  is  the  causation 
emanating  from  Omnipotence  which  he  is  required  to  resist. 
Can  a  God  of  justice  make  such  a  requisition  as  this? 

But  if  such  a  requirement  cannot  be  made — if  the  idea 
is  startling  blasphemy — and  who  can  think  it  is  less — what 
must  be  our  amazement  to  learn,  not  only  that  such  require- 
ments are  made,  but  additionally  for  non-compliance,  the 
wretch,  who  may  be  found  guilty,  is  to  be  punished  in  hell 
throughout  an  endless  eternity!  Think  of  such  a  doom, 
and  answer  yourself  the  question,  can  God  be  a  monster 
capable  of  such  appalling  ferocity?  The  devil  that  would 
torment  his  victim  in  flames  through  millions  of  years,  for 
not  annihilating  the  universe,  with  only  power  sufficient  to 
crush  a  moth,  would  be  the  impersonation  of  mercy  and 
loveliness  compared  with  such  a  being  as  this. 

If  this  doctrine  is  true,  at  the  final  judgment  the  con- 
science and  intelligence  of  the  universe  must  be  on  the  side 
of  the  condemned.     Suppose  that  when  the  conduct  of  the 


236  THE    WILL.  [CIIAP.  VIII. 

wicked  shall  be  revealed  at  that  day,  another  fact  shall 
stand  out  with  equal  conspicuousness,  namely,  that  Gpd 
himself  had  placed,  these  beings  where  but  one  course  of 
conduct  was  open  to  them,  and  that  course  they  could  not 
but  pursue — namely,  the  course  which  they  did  pursue — 
and  that,  having  pursued  this  course,  the  only  one  possible, 
they  are  now  to  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction 
from  the  presence  of  God  and  the  glory  of  his  power,  must 
not  the  intelligence  of  the  universe  pronounce  such  a  sen- 
tence unjust  ?  Yet  all  this  must  be  true,  or  the  necessity 
false.  Who  can  believe  that  the  pillars  of  God's  eternal 
government  rest  upon  such  a  doctrine  ?  A  resort  to  blank 
Atheism,  to  hopeless  death,  would  be  a  refuge  from  an 
existence  under  the  inconceivable  misrule  and  tormenting 
despotism  of  such  a  God. 

6.  I  object,  further,  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  probation  is 
an  infinite  absurdity.  We  might,  with  the  same  propriety, 
represent  the  specimens  in  the  laboratory  of  the  chemist  as 
on  probation,  as  men,  if  their  actions  are  the  necessary 
result  of  the  circumstances  in  which  Omnipotence  has 
placed  them.  What  must  intelligent  beings  think  of  pro- 
bation for  a  state  of  eternal  retribution,  based  on  such 
principles  ?     Is  it  not  a  mockery  ? 

v.  I  object,  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  all  the  exhortations 
and  persuasions  which  call  upon  the  man  to  bestir  himself — 
to  think,  to  plan,  to  act — are  inconsistent  and  absurd.  In 
all  such  persuasions,  the  man  is  urged  to  will  or  put  forth 
volitions,  as  if  he  were  the  author  or  determiner  of  volitions. 
It  may  be  replied,  that  the  man  does  will,  that  the  volitions 
are  his  volitions.  But,  allowing  them  to  be  his  in  a  certain 
sense,  the  point  of  difficulty  is  here :  they  are  made  his,  by 
being  wrought  in  him  as  a  passive  subject;  they  are  not 
his  in  the  sense  of  his  being  their  prime  cause.  You  exhort 
and  persuade  him  to  arouse  himself  to  activity;  but  what 
is   his    real    condition,    according    to   this    system?      The 


CHAr.  VIII. J  THE    WILL.  237 

exliortations  and  persuasions  do  themselves  contain  the  mo- 
live  power ;  and,  instead  of  arousing  himself  to  action — the 
thing  exhorted — he  is  absolutely  and  necessarily  passive  un- 
der the  motive  you  present.     If  he  does  not   act,  he  is  not 
at  fault,  but  the  motive ;  the  defect  is  in  the  motive,  not  in 
the  man.     He  cannot  act  without  a  sufficient  motive ;  and 
that  he  does  not  act,  is  proof  that  the  motive  is  not  suffi- 
cient.    To  blame  him,  therefore,  is  to  blame  him  for  not 
performing  an  impossibility.     Whether  he  be  moved  or  not 
as  truly  and  as  absolutely  depends  upon  the  motives  you 
present,   as  the  removing  of  any  material  mass  depends 
upon  the  power  or  labor  applied.     When  I  bring  motives 
before  the  minds  of  my  fellow-beings  in  the  proper  relation, 
the  volition  is  necessarily  produced ;  but  let  me  not  forget, 
that,  in  bringing  these  motives,  I  put  forth  volitions,  and 
that,   of  course — according  to  the  system — I  am  myself 
moved  under  the  necessity  of  some  antecedent  motive.     My 
persuasions  and  exhortations  are  necessary  sequents,  as  well 
as  necessary  antecedents.     The  water  must  run  through 
the  water  course ;  the  wheel  must  turn  under  the  force  of 
the  current.     I  must  exhort  and  persuade  when  motives 
determine  me;  the  mind  I  address  must  yield,  when  the 
motives  are  properly  selected  and  applied  to  it !     Was  there 
ever  a  more  admirable  system  of  fatalism  than  this  ?     All 
volitions  and  actions,  linked  together  in  one  endless  chain 
of  causation,  reaching  back  to  the  first  great  Mover,  as  the 
sole  and  only  cause !     The  connection  between  the  volition 
and  the  strongest  motive,  is  as  absolute  and  necessary  as 
the   connection   between   any   cause    and   its  efi'ect.     The 
movements  of  mind,  as  a  consequence  of  this  system,  are 
as  absolutely  fixed  and  rigidly  necessary,  as  the  movements 
of  the  material  creation  under  the  forces  which  cause  its 
changes.     How  utterly  absurd,  therefore,  to  address  exhor- 
tations, advices,  and  reproofs  to  men,  with  respect  to  their 


238  THE    WILL.  [CIIAP.  VIll. 

purposes  and  actions  !  Just  with  tne  same  propriety  might 
we  urge  and  entreat  the  water-wheel  to  reverse  its  motion, 
and  roll  round  against  the  current — the  norve  to  convey  no 
sensation,  under  the  most  painful  operation  —.the  eye  to  look 
upon  the  full,  blazing  sun,  without  inconvenience — the  earth 
itself  to  stand  still,  when  Omnipotence  urges  it  forward 
the  advice  would  be  as  proper  in  one  case  as  the  other.  If 
it  is  manifestly  absurd  in  the  latter  case,  it  is  no  more  so 
than  in  the  former.  A  mind,  every  one  of  whose  deter- 
minations is  absolutely  fixed  by  the  force  of  motives,  can 
no  more  of  itself  make  different  determinations,  than  matter 
can,  of  itself,  act  contrary  to  the  force  which  impels  it. 
Therefore,  if  causation  is  in  the  motive,  so  is  responsibility  ; 
and  men  would  act  wisely  no  more  to  exhort,  advise,  or 
reprove  each  other,  but  address  themselves  to  the  consid- 
eration alone  of  external  causes.  But  is  this  so?  Is  man 
the  thing  here  represented?  the  mere  sport  of  outward 
influence,  without  power,  without  agency?  He  is,  or  Cal- 
vinism is  radically  false. 

8.  I  object,  further,  to  this  doctrine,  in  the  language  of 
Tappan,  "It  is  another  consequence,  that  there  can  be 
nothing  evil  in  itself.  If  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  are 
the  highest  form  of  moral  perfection,  as,  indeed,  their  very 
names  imply,  then  all  the  necessary  consequences  of  these 
must  partake  of  their  nature.  Infinite  wisdom  and  good- 
ness, as  principles,  can  only  envelop  parts  of  themselves. 
It  would  be  the  destruction  of  logic  to  deny  this.  It 
would  annihilate  every  conclusion  that  has  ever  been 
drawn.  If  it  be  said,  that  infinite  Wisdom  has  promulged 
a  law  which  defines  clearly  what  is  essentially  right,  and 
that  it  is  a  fcict  that  volitions  do  transgress  this  law,  still 
this  cannot  affect  what  is  said  above.  The  promulgation  of 
the  law  was  but  a  necessary  development  of  infinite  Wisdom; 
and  the  volition  which  transgresses  it,  is  a  development  of 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE    WILL.  239 

the  same  nature.  If  this  seems  contradictory,  I  cannot 
help  it.  It  is  drawn  from  the  system,  and  the  system  alone 
is  responsible  for  its  conclusions." 

9.  I  object  to  the  doctrine,  that  it  is  as  fatal  to  freedom 
in  the  Divine  as  well  as  the  human  mind.  I  cannot  better 
express  this  point  than  by  substituting  the  language  of 
Fisk :  "  It  is  argued,  that  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  spon- 
taneous volition,  independent  of  the  control  of  motives, 
involves  the  absurdity,  that  *our  volitions  are  excited 
without  any  intelligent  reason  whatever,  and  as  the  effect, 
consequently,  of  nothing  better  than  a  mere  brute  or 
senseless  mechanism.'  Now,  if  this  has  any  bearing  on 
the  question,  it  relates  not  to  human  mind  and  human  voli- 
tions merely,  hut  to  mind  in  general,  and  must  apply  to 
the  Divine  mind.  The  same  may  be  said,  in  fact,  of  most 
of  the  arguments  that  are  brought  in  favor  of  this  doc- 
trine. Calvinists  are  convinced  of  this;  and,  hence,  this, 
also,  is  a  part  of  their  creed.  It  was  defended  by  Ed- 
wards, and  is  thus  avowed  by  Upham  in  his  system  of 
Mental  Philosophy.  Speaking  of  the  control  of  motives, 
he  says :  '  Our  condition,  in  this  respect,  seems  to  be  essen- 
tially the  same  with  that  of  the  supreme  Being  himself; 
he  is  inevitably  governed  in  all  his  doings,  by  what,  in  the 
great  range  of  events,  is  wisest  and  best.'  Thus,  the 
divine  Being  is,  according  to  this  theory,  and  by  the  express 
showing  of  the  leading  advocates  of  the  theory,  *  inevitably ' 
made  a  subordinate  to  a  superior.  It  is  believed  there  is  no 
avoiding  this  conclusion ;  and,  what  then  ?  Why,  then,  the 
doctrine  makes  Clod  a  necessary  agent,  and  leads  to  Athe- 
ism! It  is  nearl}^,  if  not  exactly,  the  same  as  the  old 
heathen  doctrine  of  fate.  The  ancient  heathen  supposed 
that  Jupiter  himself,  the  omnipotent  father  of  the  gods  and 
men,  must  yield  to  fate.  Modern  Christians  teach  that 
';here  is  a  certain  fitness  of  things,  certain  constitutional 
relations,   existing  independent  of   the  Divine  will,  which 


240  THE    WILL.  [chap.  VIII. 

God  himself  cannot  supersede,  but  to  which  he  must  yield. 
How  does  this  sink  at  once  both  the  natural  and  moral 
perfections  of  God!  The  exercises  of  his  wisdom  and 
goodness,  are  nothing  more  than  the  result  of  certain  fixed 
and  irresistible  influences.  Fixed,  not  by  God  himself,  for 
that'  would  be  to  give  up  the  doctrine ;  for,  in  that  case,  in 
the  order  of  cause  and  effect,  the  Divine  mind  must  have 
acted  without  control  of  motives,  if  this  law  of  motive 
influence  did  not  exist  until  the  Divine  volition  willed  it  into 
being;  and  if  he  could  once  act  independent  of  this  con- 
trol, he  might  so  act  for  ever,  and  the  argument,  built  on 
the  absurdity  of  volition  without  an  intelligent  reason, 
would  be  contradicted.  But  if  that  argument  has  any 
weight,  it  fixes,  in  the  order  of  cause  and  effect,  a  para- 
mount influence  eternally  antecedent  to  the  exercise  of  the 
Divine  mind,  and  controlling  that  mind  with  irresistible 
sAvay.  This  is  fate !  this  is  Atheism !  Once  set  up  an  influ- 
ence that  controls  the  Divine  mind,  call  that  influence  what 
you  please — fitness  of  things,  fate,  energy  of  nature,  or 
necessary  relation — and  that  moment  you  make  God  a 
subordinate ;  you  hurl  him  from  his  throne  of  sovereignty, 
and  make  him  the  instrument  of  a  superior.  Of  what  use 
is  such  a  Deity?  Might  we  not  as  well  have  none?  nay, 
better,  as  it  seems  to  me,  if,  under  the  control  of  his  own 
motive  influence,  he  is  led  to  create  beings  susceptible  of 
suffering,  and  fix  the  relations  of  those  beings  to  the  motives 
around  them  such,  that,  by  a  law  of  their  nature,  they 
are  'inevitably'  led  to  sin  and  endless  woe?  Is  it  to  be 
wondered  at,  that  many  Calvinists  have  become  infidels? 
'J'his  doctrine  of  motives  is  the  very  essence  of  the  system 
of  Spinoza,  whose  deity  was  the  energy  of  nature.  The 
supreme,  controlling  power  of  Dr.  Edwards  and  his  fol- 
lowers, is  the  energy  of  motives,  which  exist  in  the  nature  of 
things,  anterior  to  the  will  of  God.  Can  any  one  point  out 
m  essential  difference  between  the  two  systems?" 


CHAP.  VIII.]  THE    WILL.  241 

1 0.  Fisk  continues :  "Another  argument  against  the  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine  of  motives,  is  that  it  leads  to  materialism. 
The  doctrine,  it  will  be  recollected,  is  this :  when  the  mind 
is  brought  into  connection  with  objects  of  choice,  it  is 
inevitably  led,  by  a  law  of  its  nature,  to  the  selection  of 
one  rather  than  of  the  other,  unless  there  is  a  perfect 
equality  between  them ;  in  which  case  I  suppose,  of  course, 
the  mind  must  remain  in  equilibrium;  for  it  moves  only 
by  the  influence  of  motives,  and  to  the  sameidegree,  and 
in  the  same  direction,  with  motive  influences;  of  course, 
when  it  is  equally  attracted  in  opposite  directions,  it  must 
be  at  rest !  It  is  on  this  ground  that  Leibnitz  maintained 
that  God  could  not  make  two  particles  of  matter  in  all 
respects  alike;  because,  in  that  case,  being  'inevitably* 
governed  by  motives  in  his  decisions,  he  could  not  deter- 
mine where  to  place  them,  both  having  the  same  influence 
on  his  mind  for  a  location  in  the  same  place !  The  same 
writer  represents  this  motive  influence,  also,  as  frequently 
imperceptible,  but  not  the  less  eflectual,  and  not  the  less 
voluntary;  and,  to  illustrate  it,  makes  the  following  com- 
parison: *  It  is  as  if  a  needle,  touched  with  a  loadstone, 
were  sensible  of,  and  pleased  with,  its  turning  to  the  north ; 
for  it  would  believe  that  it  turned  itself  independent  of  any 
other  cause,  not  perceiving  the  insensible  motives  of  the 
magnetic  power.'  This  statement  of  Leibnitz,  who  had 
paid  great  attention  to  this  philosophical  theory,  is  impor 
tant  in  several  respects.  It  is,  in  the  first  place,  an  acknowl- 
(vdgment  that  consciousness  is  against  the  doctrine ;  and  it 
IB,  also,  a  concession  that  the  mind  is  imposed  upon  in  this 
matter  by  the  Creator.  But,  with  respfsct  tq  the  argument 
that  this  doctrine  leads  tp  materialism,  this  quotation  is 
important,  because  it  shows  that  one  of  the  most  philo- 
sophical, if  not  one  of  the  most  evangelical,  of  the  defenders 
of  this  doctrine,  considered  the  law  of  motive  influence 
similar  to  the  law  of  magnetic  attraction,  difiering  only  in 
21 


242  THE    WILL.  I  CHAP.  VIII. 

]>eing  accompanied  by  sensation  and  a  deceptive  conscious- 
ness. And  what  says  its  great  evangelical  champion  in 
this  country,  Dr.  Edwards  ?  He  compares  our  volitions  to 
the  vibrations  of  a  scale-beam,  the  different  ends  of  which 
are  respectively  elevated  or  depressed,  as  the  opposite 
weights  may  chance  to  vary.  What  is  this,  but  teaching 
that  motions  of  mind  are  governed  by  the  same  fixed  laws 
as  those  of  matter,  and  that  volitions  are  perfectly  me- 
chanical states  of  mind?  What  the  advocates  of  this 
doctrine  charge  on  the  opposite  theory,  belongs,  by  their 
own  showing,  to  their  own  system.  They,  not  we,  make 
choice  the  result  of  animal  instinct.  If  the  attractive 
power  of  motives  over  the  mind  is  any  thing  different  from 
the  law  of  gravitation,  or  magnetic  attraction,  what  is  that 
difference?  Should  any  one  say,  I  cannot  tell,  I  ask, 
then,  how  does  he  know  but  it  is  that  very  power  for  which 
Arminians  contend  ?  Most  probably  it  is  that  power.  Or 
will  it  be  said  the  difference  between  motive  influence  and 
gravity  is  consciousness?  I  reply,  consciousness  is  no  part 
of  the  relation  between  motives  and  the  power  of  choice. 
I  see  not,  indeed,  how  it  affects  that  relation  at  all.  Look 
at  the  flowing  stream;  it  hastens  on  most  freely,  and  by 
the  law  of  its  own  nature,  down  the  gentle  declivities  or 
more  precipitous  slopes  of  its  meandering  channel.  Sup- 
pose, now,  that  Omnipotence  should  impart  consciousness 
to  the  particles  of  the  continuous  current,  it  would  then 
wake  up  to  perceir.e  the  action,  and  feel  the  pleasure  of  its 
own  delightful  motions.  It  Avould  roll  on  still  by  the  law 
of  its  own  nature,  and  would  feel  that  it  was  free  to  move 
according  to  its  own  inclination  and  voluntary  tendency, 
for  its  will  would,  of  course,  be  in  the  direction  of  its  mo- 
tive, or,  in  other  woi'ds,  its  gravitating  influence.  But  could 
it  turn  its  course,  and  roll  back  its  waters  to  their  fountain  ? 
It  could,  if  it  was  so  inclined.  But  its  present  inclination 
is  toward  the  bottom  of  the  vallej^  or  the  bosom  of  the 


Vn\P.  VIII.]  THE    WILL.  243 

ocean;  and  thither,  by  the  rehition  which  exists  between 
its  particles  and  the  gravitating-  influence  of  the  earth,  it 
lolls  on  with  the  utmost  freedom,  though  with  the  utter 
impossibiUty  of  changing  its  own  course,  without  the  inver- 
sion of  the  gravitating  power.  Let  the  hand  of  Omnipotence 
invert  the  slope  of  the  mountain,  and,  lo !  with  the  same  free- 
dom these  very  same  waters  roll  back  again  to  their  original 
fountains !  Thus  it  is  with  the  human  mind :  it  is  conscious 
of  being  free  to  move  in  the  direction  of  its  inclinations,  but 
require  it  to  turn  its  course,  and  move  in  the  current  of  its 
volitions  in  an  opposite  direction,  and  it  would  be  utterly 
impossible,  until  Omnipotence  himself  should  change  the 
motive  influence.  '  God  is  the  determiner  of  perceptions, 
and  perceptions  are  the  determiners  of  choice,' 

"  We  see,  therefore,  that  this  doctrine  of  motive  influence 
leads  to  materialism;  for  it  makes  the  analogy  between 
mental  and  material  action  so  complete,  that  it  destroys  alh 
idea  of  intellectual  power.  Philosophically  speaking,  there 
is  no  power  in  the  laws  of  nature.  What  we  express  by 
the  power  of  attraction,  repulsion,  or  decomposition,  is 
nothing  more  than  the  uniformity  of  the  Divine  agency." 
The  power  of  motives  to  excite  volitions,  is  nothing  else  but 
the  Divine  energy  operating  through  that  mode  to  the 
accomplishment  of  a  given  end.  God  is  the  all-directing 
agent;  mind,  the  passive  recipient.  From  the  theory, 
inertia  becomes  the  law  of  mind  as  well  as  of  matter; 
materialism  is  the  unavoidable  consequence. 

Free  agency,  responsibility,  and  kindred  vital  doctrines, 
vanish  before  this  theory,  as  mists  before  the  sun.  God  be 
comes  the  sole  and  universal  doer:  all  physical,  intellectual, 
and  moral  results,  emanate  -from  and  return  to  him.  Human 
volitions  are  as  really  the  effiects  of  Divine  agency,  as  the 
rising  of  the  stars,  the  flight  of  the  lightning,  the  tumult 
of   the  waters,  or  the  light,  which  spreads  itself  like  a 


244  THE    WILL.  [chap.  VIII. 

garment  over  creation.  Every  volition  of  created  mind  is 
God's  act,  as  really  as  any  other  effect  in  nature.  We 
have  seen  how  every  volition  is  connected  with  its  motive — 
how  the  motive  lies  in  a  preconstitution — how  the  series  oi 
antecedents  and  sequents  necessarily  runs  back,  and  con- 
nects itself  with  the  infinite  wisdom.  God's  wisdom  is  his 
own  act;  the  effect  immediately  produced  by  that  vCiitioE 
is  his  own  deed.  Let  that  effect  be  the  creation  of  man: 
the  man,  in  all  his  powers  and  susceptibilities,  is  God's 
work;  the  objects  around  him  are  God's  work;  the  corre- 
lation of  the  objects  with  the  sensibility  of  man  is  God's 
work;  the  volition,  which  necessarily  takes  place  as  the 
result  of  this  correlation,  is  God's  work.  The  volition  of 
the  man  is  as  strictly  attributable  to  God,  as,  according  to 
our  common  apprehensions,  the  blow  which  I  give  with  the 
axe  is  attributable  to  me.  What  is  true  of  the  first  man,  is 
equally  true  of  man  removed  to  a  thousand  generations, 
for  the  intermediate  links  are  all  ordained  of  G  od,  and  form 
but  so  many  parts  of  the  same  necessity.  God  is  really 
the  sole  doer — the  only  efficient  cause :  all  beings  and 
things,  all  motions  and  volitions,  are  absolutely  resolved 
into  Divine  volitions.  God  is  the  author  of  all  beings, 
things,  motions,  and  Volitions,  and  as  much  the  author  of 
any  one  of  these  as  any  other,  and  the  author  of  all  in  the 
same  way,  and  in  the  same  sense.  All  things  exist  in 
necessity ;  that  necessity  centres  either  in  God,  or  in  some- 
thing which  is  above  God ;  God  himself  is  all  and  only,  or 
he,  like  all  things  else,  is  but  a  link  in  the  stupendous 
chain,  which  attaches  to  the  blind  fate  Avhich  governs  and 
directs  him,  together  with  the  rest. 

11.  I  object,  further,  to  this  doctrine,  that  it  is  not  only 
contradictory  to  the  reason  and  consciousness  of  mankind, 
but,  also,  to  the  word  and  revelation  of  God.  It  finds  no 
favor  in  the  Bible:  every  precept,  exhortation,  invitaiion. 


rnAP.  VIII. I  THE  WILL.  245 

entreaty,  remonstrance  of  that  book,  is  opposed  to  it :  it  is 
anti-Bible.  This  might  be  shown  with  the  utmost  ease, 
but  it  is  so  palpable  as  to  need  no  such  manifestation. 

12.  I  object:  it  is  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  the  early 
Christians.  I  refer  my  readers,  for  proof  of  this  and  the 
former  point,  given  at  length,  to  Beechor's  Views  in  The- 
ology, Tomlins'  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  Whitby  on  the 
Five  Points,  (fee. 

13.  I  object,  that  the  whole  theory  of  motive  influence 
is  without  support,  and  depends  upon  vicious  reasoning,  or 
reasoning  in  a  circle,  for  its  proof.  It  asks  to  be  believed 
upon  unsound  argumentation,  and  against  the  most  over- 
whelming and  conclusive  evidence  of  its  utter  falsehood. 
When,  for  instance,  we  ask  what  determines  the  will,  we 
are  directly  answered,  it  is  the  strongest  motive ;  but  when 
we  ask  what  constitutes  the  strongest  motive,  we  are 
answered,  that  which  determines  the  will.  The  whole 
theory  is  reducible  to  this  vicious  circle — this  absurd  as- 
sumption. Edwards'  celebrated  work  revolves  in  it  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end.  An  unsupported  assertion  is 
made  the  basis  of  the  whole,  and  upon  the  strength  of  this 
we  are  required  to  yield  credence,  against  the  testimony 
of  consciousness,  of  reason,  of  nature  itself,  of  the  Bible, 
and  of  every  fhing  else,  within  and  without  us,  entitled  to 
respect. 

For  a  more  extensive  examination  of  this  point,  I  must 
refer  my  readers  to  the  following  works:  Dr.  Beecher's 
Views  in  Theology,  Mahan  on  the  Will,  Tappan's  Review 
of  Edwards,  Bledsoe  on  the  Will,  Fisk,  Jouffroy,  &c.  I 
take  pleasure  in  acknowledging  my  obligations  to  these 
authors,  as  aids  to  the  preparation  of  the  pi-esent  brief 
chapter.  Had  it  been  possible,  I  should  gladly  have  made 
still  more  copious  extracts  from  them.  Let  the  studious 
inquirer  refer  to  them,  and  he  will  find  the  subject  thor- 
oughly and  sufficiently  discussed.    Had  it  been  our  purpose 


246  Tiiii  WILL.  [ciiAr.  VIII. 

to  write  a  treatise  on  the  will,  a  more  particular  examination 
of  th*^  theory  here  objected  to  would  have  been  made ;  such 
was  not  our  plan,  bu*  simply  to  state  the  grounds  or  prin- 
ciples of  the  system,  and  name  some  of  the  many  insuper- 
able difficulties  investing  it.  We  leave  the  subject  here :  ii 
will  be  for  our  readers  to  determine  upon  the  question  in 
debate.  Is  the  view  Ave  have  antagonized  true  or  false? 
What  is  the  answer?  Let  not  prejudice  make  up  the  decis- 
ion. What  says  reason — consciousness — the  word  of  God  ? 
What  says  the  language  of  mankind — the  common,  every 
day,  and  everyw^here  sentiments  of  the  species?  Does  not 
every  thing  with  which  we  are  conversant — all  law,  all  usnge, 
all  organizations  of  human  society,  all  rational  methods  of 
government  and  influence — proceed  upon  the  assumption  that 
man  is  a  free,  voluntary  agent,  having  power  to  determine 
his  own  choices,  as  well  as  actions  ?  Such,  it  seems  to  me, 
must  be  the  spontaneous  response  of  mankind — of  human- 
ity, unbiased  by  prejudice,  unfettered  by  false  philosophy. 


APPENDIX. 


It  will  be  proper  to  say,  at  this  point,  that  what  is  heic 
presented  as  an  Appendix,  is  the  substance  of  Dr.  aRice's 
i-ephes  to  my  letters,  with  my  rejoinders  thereto.  It  will 
be  seen  by  the  reader,  that  our  rejoinders  are  confined 
strictly  to  the  points  at  issue  between  us.  The  reasons 
for  this  will  be  obvious.  Had  we  permitted  ourselves  to 
be  decoyed  into  irrelevant  matters,  we,  and  our  readers, 
would  have  become  bewildered  and  lost  in  the  mazes  of 
endless  logomachy.  This  would,  doubtless,  have  pleased 
our  friend,  as  it  would  have  served  to  divert  attention  from 
his  system ;  but  it  did  not  suit  us. 

NUMBER    I. 

I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  lay  Dr.  Rice's  reply  to  my  first 
and  second  letters  before  my  readers.  In  its  general  tone 
and  spirit  it  accords  well  with  my  expectations;  and  if  ii 
fails  in  argument,  I  find  an  apology  in  the  circumstances  of 
the  case.     The  Doctor  will  make  up  for  this  hereafter. 

*' Letters  on  Calvinism. — We  are  decidedly  of  opinion, 
after  reading  two  of  Mr.  Foster's  Letters  on  Calvinism, 
that  he  really  needs  the  assistance  which,  in  his  first  letter, 
he  so  warmly  invoked.  His  second  letter  urges  the  old 
objection,  a  thousand  times  made,  and  as  often  refuted, 
that  the  doctrine  of  decrees  makes  God  the  author  of  sin. 
This  hackneyed  objection  is  founded  upon  the  idea,  that 
*  God's  decree  is  the  necessity  or  necessitating  cause  of  sin.' 
Now,  inasmuch  as  Presbyterians  hold  no  such  view,  and 
would  really  depose  any  one  of  their  ministers  who  should 
teach  it,  the  objection  is  utterly  without  force.  No  Pres- 
byterian holds,  that  God  ever  purposed  or  decreed  to 
dispose  or   influence   any  man  or  angel   to    sin.     If  Mr. 

241 


248  ,  APPENDIX. 

Foster  had  taken  the  trouble  to  read  the  sixth  chaptei 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  he  would  have 
found  the  following  language  concerning  the  fall  of  our 
first  parents:  'This  their  sin  God  was  pleased,  according 
to  his  wise  and  holy  counsel,  to  permit,  having  purposed 
to  order  it  to  his  own  glory/  He  will  scarcely  assert,  that 
God  *d  not  permit  their  sin,  nor  that  by  permitting  it  he 
forced  them  to  it,  and  thus  became  the  author  of  it.  Nor, 
we  presume,  will  he  pretend,  that  God's  purpose  to  order 
this  sin  to  his  own  glory — to  bring  good  out  of  evil — ^made 
him  the  author  of  sin.  And  yet  this  is  precisely  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Confession — that  God  purposed  to  permit  the 
sins  of  men  and  angels,  and  so  to  bound,  control,  and  order 
them,  that  his  own  wise  plans  shall  be  accomplished  by 
their  means.  Any  harm  in  this  ?  Does  not  the  Bible  say, 
*  Surely  the  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  thee :  the  remainder 
of  wrath  shalt  thou  restrain?'  (Psalm  Ixxvi,  10.)  Does 
it  not  say,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  delivered  to  crucifixion, 
*by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God?' 
(Acts  ii,  23.)  Come  back,  brother  Foster,  and  start  right, 
or  your  work  will  all  be  lost. 

"There  is  another  great  defect  in  these  letters.  The 
real  points  of  difference  between  Methodists  and  Presby- 
terians are  not  stated.  One  might  conclude  from  all  that 
Mr.  Foster  has  yet  said,  that,  according  to  Methodism, 
God  has  no  purposes  at  all,  certainly  none  that  relate  to 
men.  What  is  the  Methodist  doctrine  on  this  subject? 
Wherein,  precisely,  do  they  differ?  The  very  first  thing 
necessary  to  a  satisfactory  discussion  of  this  subject,  is  a 
clear  statement  of  the  difference  between  the  faith  of 
Methodists  and  that  of  Presbyterians. 

"We  venture  to  suggest,  whether  it  would  not  be  well 
for  Mr.  Foster  to  let  his  first  two  letters  go  for  nothing,  as 
the  boys  say,  and  begin  anew." 

To  so  much  of  the  above  as  purports  to  be  an  answer  to 


APPENDIX,  249 

my  letters,  I  now  call  atK^tion.  Irrelevant  portions  I  must 
be  excused  from  noticing.  "His  second  letter,"  he  says, 
"urges  the  old  objection,  a  thousand  times  made,  and  as 
often  refuted,  that  the  doctrine  of  decrees  makes  God  the 
author  of  sin."  Now,  Doctor,  why  did  you  not  tell  me 
how  that  old  objection  was  refuted  ?  That  is  precisely  the 
thing  I  desire  to  know ;  and  if  it  has  been  done  so  often, 
you,  of  course,  will  find  it  perfectly  convenient  to  repeat 
it  for  my  edification.  Attend  to  this,  if  you  please,  as 
soon  as  you  find  leisure,  by  taking  up  and  refuting  my 
arguments. 

"This  hackneyed  objection  is  founded  upon  the  idea, 
that  God's  decree  is  the  necessity  or  necessitating  cause 
of  sin.  Now,  inasmuch  as  Presbyterians  hold  no  such 
views,  and  would  really  depose  any  one  of  their  ministers 
who  should  teach  it,  the  objection  is  utterly  without  force. 
No  Presbyterian  holds,  that  God  ever  purposed  or  decreed 
to  influence  any  man  or  angel  to  sin.  If  Mr.  Foster  had 
taken  the  trouble  to  read  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  he  would  have  found  the  fol- 
lowing language  concerning  the  fall  of  our  first  parents: 
*  This  their  sin  God  was  pleased,  according  to  his  wise  and 
holy  counsel,  to  permit,  having  purposed  to  order  it 
to  his  own  glory.' "  This  language  I  can  assure  Dr.  Rice 
I  have  often  read,  and  much  more  to  the  same  import, 
from  various  Calvinistic  authors.  But,  as  said  in  my 
second  letter,  this  only  convinces  me  that  the  different 
parts  of  the  system  clash,  and  they  who  embrace  it  em- 
brace contradictions.  It  is  certainly  in  vain  to  demur 
against  a  clear,  logical  conclusion.  What  the  Doctor  must 
do,  is  to  point  out  where  my  logic  is  at  fault,  not  to  array 
disclaimers.  His  present  course  will  only  help  me  to 
another  chapter  of  objections  against  his  system;  that  is, 
that  it  is  self- contradictory,  which,  in  due  time,  I  expect 
to  prove. 


250  APPENDIX. 

But  now  to  the  question  of  fadl.  Dr.  Rice  asserts,  thai 
*•'  no  Presbyterian  holds  that  God's  decree  is  the  necessity 
or  necessitating  cause  of  sin" — that  "they  would  depose  a 
minister  who  should  teach  it" — that  "no  Presbyterian 
holds^  that  God  ever  purposed  or  decreed  to  dispose  or 
influence  any  man  or  angel  to  sin."  Right  upon  this  point 
1  jom  issue  with  Dr.  Rice.  My  reasons  for  making  the 
charge  are  contained  in  my  second  letter,  and  his  assertion 
must  stand  unsupported  until  these  reasons  are  answered, 
and  taken  away.  Will  the  Doctor  remove  them?  Mean- 
time we  submit  additional  proofs  upon  this  point. 

1.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  itself,  contained 
in  the  following  language :  "  God,  from  all  eternity,  did,  by 
the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and 
unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.  Although 
God  knows  whatsoever  may  or  can  come  to  pass  upon  all 
supposed  conditions,  yet  hath  he  not  decreed  any  thing 
because  he  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would 
come  to  pass  upon  such  supposed  conditions."  Here  is 
a  witness  I  introduce  to  the  respectful  attention  of  Dr 
Rice :  it  is  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith. 

It  testifies  three  things  concerning  God's  decrees:  1.  He 
decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.  2.  His  decree  was 
made  from  eternity.  3.  His  decree  was  unconditional — 
absolute. 

Sin,  then,  as  it  has  come  to  pass,  was  decreed  to  come 
to  pass,  from  eternity,  and  without  conditions.  But  that 
which  is  decreed  to  come  to  pass  without  conditions,  can- 
not be  said  to  be  merely  permitted,  as  it  is  manifest  that  to 
permit  a  thing  supposes  conditions,  or  reasons  in  the  thing 
for  so  permitting  it. 

2.  The  expositor  of  the  Confession  says,  "The  fore- 
knowledge of  God  will  necessarily  infer  a  decree;  for 
God  could  not  foreknow  that  things  would  be  unless 
he  had  decreed  they  should  be'' — not  might  be.     Now, 


APPENDIX.  251 

according  to  this,  either  God  did  not  know  sin  would  be,  or 
he  decreed  it  should  he.  To  deny  the  former  is  to  deny  the 
•Divine  oraniscience-^to  admit,  is  to  admit  that  he  decreea 
sin  should  be.  But  the  expositor  of  the  Confession  tells  us 
explicitly,  that  the  efficient  cause  of  sinful  actions  is  the 
decree  of  God.  If  the  decree  causes  the  act,  does  it  not 
cause  the  sin? 

3.  Herman  Witsius  says,  "  The  human  will  can  produce 
no  action  of  which  God  is  not  the  author."  Does  sin  reside 
in  the  will?  Then  God,  who  is  the  author  of  every  act  of 
the  will,  is  author  of  every  sin.  With  him  agree  Hill,  Dick, 
Chalmers,  and  others,  quoted  in  my  third  letter.  I  request 
my  readers  to  refer  to  the  numerous  quotations  contained  in 
that  letter  upon  this  point. 

4.  "  The  will  of  the  supreme  Being  is  the  cause  of  every 
thing  that  now  exists,  or  is  to  exist  at  any  future  time." 
(Hill.)  Does  sin  exist?  Then,  according  to  Hill,  God's 
decrees  caused  it. 

"The  supreme  Being  selects  those  single  objects  and 
combinations  of  objects,  which  he  chooses  to  bring  into 
existence;  and  every  circumstance  in  the  manner  of  the 
existence  of  that  which  is  to  be,  thus  depending  entirely 
on  his  will,  is  known  to  him  because  he  decreed  it  should 
be" — not  might  be.  "The  Divine  decree  is  the  determina- 
tion to  produce  the  universe,  that  is,  the  whole  series  of 
heings  and  events'^  (lb.)  Is  it  causing  a  thing  to  produce 
li-'-ereate  it?  Then  the  Divine  decree,  Mr.  Hill  says, 
caused  sin. 

5.  "  I  say  with  Augustine,  that  the  Lord  created  those 
who  he  certainly  foreknew  would  fall  into  destruction,  and 
that  this  was  actually  so  because  he  willed  it."  (Calvin.) 
"  I  confess  with  Augustine,  that  God's  decree  is  the  neces- 
sity of  things."  (lb.)  Is  sin  something?  Then  Calvin 
says,  God's  decree  is  the  necessity  of  it.  "They  further 
object,  [we  Arminians,]  were  they  not,  by  the  decree  dI' 


252  APPENDIX. 

God  antecedently  predestinated  to  that  corruption,  which 
is  now  stated  as  the  cause  of  condemnation?  When  they 
perish  in  their  corruption  therefor,  they  only  suffer  the 
punishment  of  that  misery  into  which,  in  consequence  of 
his  predestination,  Adam  fell,  and  precipitated  his  posterity 
with  him.  I  confess,  indeed,  that  the  descendants  of  Adam 
fell  by  the  Divine  will;  and  this  is  what  I  said  at  the  begin- 
ning, that  we  must  always  return,  at  last,  to  the  sovereign 
determination  of  God's  will."  (lb.)  "  Nor  should  it  be 
thought  absurd  to  affirm,  that  God  not  only  foresaw  the 
fall  of  the  first  man,  and  the  ruin  of  his  posterity  in  him, 
but  also  arranged  all  by  the  determination  of  his  will."  (lb.) 
**  It  should  be  considered  as  indubitably  certain,  that  all  the 
revolutions  in  the  world  proceed  from  the  secret  exertion 
of  the  Divine  power.  What  God  decrees,  must  necessarily 
come  to  pass."  (lb.)  Does  this  look  like  permission.  Doc- 
tor? "It  is  not  probable  that  man  procured  his  own  de- 
struction, by  the  mere  permission,  and  without  the  appoint- 
ment of  God."  (lb.)  Not  much  favor  for  your  idea  of 
permission  here.  Doctor.  "  We  make  God  the  arbiter  and 
governor  of  all  things,  who,  in  his  own  wisdom,  has,  from 
the  remotest  eternity,  decreed  what  he  would  do,  and  now 
by  his  own  power  executes  what  he  has  decreed.  Whence 
we  assert,  that  not  only  the  heavens,  and  earth,  and  inan- 
imate creatures,  but  also  the  deliberations  and  volitions  of 
men  are  so  governed  by  his  providence,  as  to  be  directed  to 
the  end  appointed  by  it.''  (lb.)  ''They  therefore  evade 
the  difficulty,  by  alledging  that  it  happens  only  by  the  per- 
mission, and  not  by  the  will  of  God ;  but  God  himself,  by 
the  most  unequivocal  declarations,  rejects  this  subterfuge." 
(lb.)  It  would  seem.  Doctor,  that  Calvin  was  not  well 
pleased  with  your  subterfuge  of  permission.  "The  whole 
may  be  summed  up  thus :  that,  as  the  will  of  God  is  said 
to  be  the  cause  of  all  things,  his  providence  is  established 
as  the  governor  in  all  the  counsels  and  works  of  men,  so 


APPENDIX.  25S 

that  it  not  only  exerts  its  power  in  the  elect,  who  are  influ- 
enced by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  compels  the  compliance 
of  the  reprobate.  .  .  .  For  the  first  man  fell,  because 
the  Lord  had  determined  that  it  was  so  expedient."     (lb.) 

I  commend  these  quotations  from  Calvin  especially  to 
the  attention  of  Dr.  Rice.  Will  he  give  us  light  upon 
them  ? 

6.  To  Dr.  Rice's  retreat  from  my  arguments,  under  the 
pretense  that  Presbyterians  do  not  attach  the  idea  of  ne- 
cessity to  decree,  but  bare  permission,  I  object,  further, 
that  it  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  those  dis- 
tinguished Calvinists  already  referred  to,  but  it  is  also 
absurd  in  itself,  and  antagonistic  to  the  whole  system 
essentially. 

It  is  contrary  to  the  signification  of  the  terms  employed. 
Decree,  purpose,  predestinate,  ordain,  predetermine,  and 
such  terms,  exclusively  used,  do  not  contain  the  idea  of 
permission,  but  are  precisely  the  opposite  of  such  idea, 
and  contain  alone  the  idea  of  appointment,  establishment, 
fixedness,  to  set,  to  appoint,  to  establish,  to  prepurpose,  to 
procure  by  edict,  by  authority;  and  with  no  consistency 
whatever,  can  that  which  is  barely  permitted  be  said  to  be 
decreed. 

Is  it  said  the  decree  was  to  permit  sin ;  that  is,  God  ap- 
pointed, fixed  in  purpose,  decreed,  that  he  would  permit 
sin?  I  answer,  such  a  construction  shows  clearly  that  he 
did  not  decree  sin,  but  only  decreed  what  his  own  action 
would  be  in  respect  to  it,  should  it  be  about  to  occur :  he 
decreed  that  in  such  a  case  he  would  not  prevent  it — he 
would  allow  it  to  take  place.  Is  this  decreeing  sin  ?  The 
decree  did  not  respect  the  sin,  but  simply  himself;  so  that, 
if  God  simply  permitted  sin  to  exist,  he  did  not  decree  its 
existence.  But  then  Dr.  Rice  is  reduced  to  this  dilemma. 
If  he  says  God  simply  permitted  sin,  he  admits  that  he  did 
not  decree  it;  and  so  he  admits  that  his  Confession  is  in 


2o4  APPENDIX. 

error,  "when  it  says  God  decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass. 
If  he  says  God  decreed  sin,  he  retreats  from  the  position 
lie  has  already  made,  that  he  simply  permits  it. 

T.  But  I  object,  f mother,  to  Dr.  Rice,  that,  when  he  says 
God  did  not  procure  sin  by  his  decree,  he  antagonizes  his 
system  in  another  particular.  It  is  contended  by  all  Cal- 
vinists,  that  God's  foreknowledge  is  consequent  upon  his 
decree ;  he  foreknows  things  will  be,  because  he  has  decreed 
they  shall  be.  How  can  this  be,  if  the  occurrence  of  the 
thing  is  not  somehow  dependent  upon  the  decree?  If  it 
mio^ht  occur  without  beinof  decreed,  mie^ht  it  not  be  known 
to  an  omniscient  God  ?  If  it  could  not  occur  by  any  pos- 
sibility without  being  decreed,  then  is  not  the  intervention 
of  decree  supposed  to  be  the  essential  thing  in  order  to 
its  occurrence,  or  the  cause  of  it? 

8.  I  object,  further,  to  Dr.  Rice's  doctrine  of  permission, 
that  it  is  contrary  to  his  doctrine  of  the  will.  He  does  not 
believe  that  the  human  will  can  act  of  itself — he  will  admit 
this — he  cannot  deny.  The  will,  he  believes,  always  and 
necessariiy  acts  from  the  force  of  motives.  The  strongest 
motive  must  prevail.  The  will  must  accord  with  the 
stiongest  motive,  as  the  needle  must  turn  to  the  pole — as. 
the  scale  must  descend  with  the  preponderating  weight. 
He  believes  that  these  motives,  whatever  they  may  be,  are 
all  arranged  of  God,  and  brought  to  bear  upon  the  will,  by 
a  decree  as  old  as  eternity.  But  how  now,  if  he  has  made 
the  action  of  the  will  subject  to  motives,  and  if  he  has  ap- 
pointed all  the  motives,  can  it  be  said  he  permits  the  action 
of  the  will  ?  Is  it  not  manifest  that  he  causes  it,  as  directly 
as  though  he  controlled  it  by  positive  agency  ? 

The  foregoing  reasons,  together  with  the  quotations  and 
arguments  previously  given,  I  assign  as  sustaining  the 
charge  made  in  my  second  letter,  that  Calvinism  makeg 
God  the  author  of  sin.  Will  the  Doctor  point  out  in 
what    particular    they   fail    to   sustain   the   charge?      To 


APPENDIX.  255 

these,  a  variety  of  additional  quotations  from  other  au- 
thors and  arguments,  will  be  submitted  as  occasion  may 
require. 

NUMBER  II. 

Dr.  Rice  thus  notices  my  letters,  after  reading  the  fourth : 
"  The  first  objection  urged  by  Mr.  Foster,  of  the  Methodist 
Church,  against  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Divine  deeree, 
is  that  it  makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  by  making  him  the 
necessitating  cause  of  sin;  the  second  is,  that  it  destroys 
the  free  agency  of  man ;  and  the  third,  that  it  destroys  the 
accountability  of  man.  These  three  objections  are  so  nearly 
identical,  that  they  properly  make  but  one,  and  they  are  all 
based  upon  a  view  of  the  doctrine  not  taught  in  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  and  not  held  by  any  Presby- 
terian. The  whole  of  his  arguments,  therefore,  are  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  an  entire  misrepresentation  of  the  doc- 
trme.  This  being  the  case,  no  particular  notice  need  be 
taken  of  them." 

I  am  here  charged  with  misrepresenting  Calvinism. 
Upon  this  ground  the  Doctor .  declines  noticing  my  letters 
further. 

The  charge  that  I  have  misrepresented  Calvinism,  to  me 
seems  strange.  Why,  I  have  not  represented  it  at  all — I 
have  only  presented  it.  I  have  quoted  only  from  their  own 
standards.  If  they  are  misrepresented,  they  have  mis- 
represented themselves.  I  have  drawn  inferences  from 
their  authors  quoted,  it  is  true,  and  deduced  consequences. 
If  in  this  I  have  been  unfair  or  illogical — if  I  have  misun- 
derstood the  authors  cited,  I  can  assure  the  Doctor  it  has 
been  unintentional,  and  I  only  ask  him  to  correct  my  honest 
and  sincere  misapprehensions.  My  sole  object,  in  address- 
ing these  letters  to  Dr.  Rice,  was  that  I  might  have  the 
benefit  of  his  explanations.  Now,  why  does  he  decline? 
He  cannot  think  I  have  been  unkind — he  cannot  look  upon 
the  matter  with  indifference — he  cannot  plead  disinclination 


'2r>6  APPENDIX. 

to  such  controversies.  Why,  then,  will  he  at  this  point  ab 
ruptly  leave  me  under  all  the  misapprehensions  and  conse- 
quent difficulties  of  mind  I  experience  in  regard  to  his 
system?  I  was  in  hopes,  and  still  am,  that  explanations 
could  be  made,  which  would  discover  that  we  are  not  so 
wide  apart  as  we  sometimes  have  thought.  I  have  stated 
my  views  of  the  system,  always  giving  the  authorities  upon 
which  they  were  founded,  and  then  raised  my  objections  to 
the  system  as  I  understood  it,  on  purpose  that  such  expla- 
nations might  be  made,  expecting  that  Dr.  Rice  would — 
particularly  after  pledging  himself  to  my  aid — point  out 
my  mistakes,  and  lead  me  to  a  better  view.  And  now  he 
stops  still,  and  meets  me  with  the  blank  reply,  that  my 
"  letters  are  an  entire  misrepresentation."  Is  this  mag- 
nanimous ?  I  wall  not  say  it  is  not.  Dr.  Rice  will  perceive 
the  propriety  of  a  second  thought,  and  will  return  to  my 
aid — particularly  as  he  will  have  the  opportunity  of  cor- 
recting the  erroneous  views  of  at  least  40,000  readers  of 
the  Advocate,  with  respect  to  his  system. 

Dr.  Rice  says  that  I  misrepresent  Calvinism  on  this 
point — that  it  renders  the  decree  of  God  "the  necessitating 
cause  of  sin."  Now,  if  I  had  made  that  charge  in  so  many 
words,  on  my  own  authority,  it  would  be  sufficient  for  Dr. 
Rice  to  deny.  This  would  satisfy  our  readers.  But'I  have 
stated  my  reasons  for  making  the  charge.  These  reasons 
are  either  good  or  bad :  if  good,  they  sustain  the  charge, 
and  the  system  is  liable;  if  bad,  it  can  be  made  to  appear. 

The  Doctor  says  no  Presbyterian  believes  the  doctrine! 
I  quote  his  own  Confession  and  many  authors — standard 
with  his  Church — against  him,  and  sustaining  my  charge. 
Now,  these  quotations  sustain  my  charge,  or  they  do  not. 
Jf  they  do,  I  have  not  misrepresented  Calvinism;  if  they 
do  not,  it  can  be  shown. 

The  Doctor  has  made  the  issue  with  me  himself  upon 
this  point.     Why  now  does  he  decline  it?     He  certainly 


APPENDIX.  257 

Tttnnot  suppose  that  his  bare  denial  will  be  sufficient  in  this 
Rase. 

I  will  not  complain  of  the  Doctor,  that  he  charges  me 
of  misrepresenting  Calvinism  to  thousands  of  his  readers, 
without  letting  me  be  heard — thereby  producing  the  impres- 
sion that  I  have  done  them  a  great  wrong.  I  make  no 
complaint.  It  may  be  right  to  hold  a  man  up  as  a  false 
accuser,  without  giving  the  particulars  of  his  accusation. 
If  the  Doctor  was  under  no  obligation  to  notice  these  letters 
in  the  first  instance — having  made  an  issue  with  us  volun- 
tarily— he  must  certainly  see  the  propriety  of  sustaining 
his  own  issue.  After  all  that  has  appeared  from  Dr.  Rice's 
pen,  and  in  his  columns,  it  must  seem  strange  for  him  to 
retire  at  this  juncture.  We,  however,  leave  him  to  pursue 
his  own  pleasure ;  and,  having  commenced,  we  shall  go  on 
with  our  letters,  exposing  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  errors 
of  Calvinism.  Whenever  Dr.  Rice  shall  redeem  his  pledge, 
we  shall  be  glad  to  treat  him  with  due  courtesy;  but 
whether  or  not,  we  shall  proceed  in  the  same  good  spirit  to 
perfect  the  work  we  have  undertaken. 

That  Calvinists  are  inextricably  involved  in  the  doctrine 
of  necessity,  as  charged,  and  so  liable  to  all  the  objections 
urged  against  them,  particularly  the  three  expressly  dis- 
claimed by  Dr.  Rice,  will  appear  still  further  by  the  follow- 
ing considerations : 

].  The  expositor  of  the  Confession,  in  his  notes  on  the 
article  respecting  the  will,  holds  this  language :  "  According 
to  Calvinists,  the  liberty  of  a, moral  agent  consists  in  the 
power  of  acting  according  to  his  choice ;  and  those  actions 
are  free  which  are  performed  without  external  compulsion — 
physical  compulsion — in  consequence  of  the  determination 
of  his  own  mind.  The  necessity  of  man's  willing  and  act- 
mg,  according  to  his  apprehension  and  disposition,  is,  in 
their  opinion,  fully  consistent  with  the  highest  liberty  whicli 
can  belong  to  a  rational  nature.     .     .     .As  nothins^  can 

22 


258  APPENDIX. 

ever  come  to  pass  without  a  cause,  the  acts  of  the  will  are 
never  without  necessity;  understanding,  by  necessity,  an 
infallible  connection  with  something  foregoing."  This  1 
understand  to  be  the  doctrine  of  all  Calvinists  respecting 
the  will  of  man,  as  well  before  as  since  the  fall ;  it  is  often 
expressed  in  stronger  language. 

Now,  this  view  of  the  will  utterly  discards  this  idea  of 
liberty — power  to  choose  either  of  two  alternatives.  Here 
is  the  real  point  of  difference  between  us  and  them:  with 
them  liberty  is  necessity  to  choose  one  way  according  to 
the  motive,  but  not  power  to  make  an  opposite  choice: 
with  us  it  is  the  power  to  choose  either  of  the  various  alter- 
natives presented  to  the  mind.  Now,  upon  their  doctrine 
of  the  will,  I  base  an  argument  that  its  decisions  are  neces- 
sitated, and  not  free;  and,  hence,  that  it  is  absurd  for  a 
Calvinist  to  contend  for  freedom.  Take  man  in  a  state  of 
innocence — for  we  desire  to  give  the  advocates  of  the 
system  the  most  favorable  opportunity  to  defend  them- 
selves— the  question  is,  Was  man  capacitated  with  freedom 
to  stand  or  fall,  in  the  circumstances?  And,  according  to 
the  Calvinian  system,  the  answer  must  be,  he  was  not;  for 
he  was  so  constituted  that  he  must  )^ield  to  the  prevailing 
disposition  or  strongest  motive.  He  could  not  avoid  this; 
it  was  his  nature.  He  had  no  control  of  these  motives,  and 
when  they  came  upon  him  he  as  necessarily  was  moved  by 
them,  as  the  needle  is  moved  to  the  pole;  it  matters  not 
that  he  chose  to  move  with  the  influence ;  for  the  want  of 
liberty  and  the  fact  of  necessity  were  found  in  the  circum- 
stance, that  he  had  no  control  of  his  choice :  he  made  his 
choice  necessarily. 

Now,  I  ask  Dr.  Rice,  what  does  control  the  choice  ?  He 
must  answei.,  whatever  goes  to  constitute  the  prevailing 
motive.  But,  then,  I  ask,  who  controls  and  governs  these 
motives?  And  he  must  answer,  that  all  things  are  ar- 
ranged and  governed  by  God  himself:    God  controls  the 


APPENDIX.  259 

motives;  the  motives  control  the  man.  He  sins,  neces- 
sitated by  the  motive.  And,  now,  where  do  we  find  the 
first  cause  ?  Not  in  the  choice ;  for  it  was  an  effect :  not  in 
the  motives ;  for  they  were  under  the  government  and  con- 
trol of  God.  Here,  then,  we  trace  the  operations  of  man's 
will  back  to  God :  not  as  permitted,  but  procured.  If  the 
Calvinists  can  trace  it  beyond  God,  they  may  free  their 
system  from  making  God  the  first  cause  of  sin ! 

2.  I  derive  an  argument  from  the  Calvinian  view  of 
providence.  Two  things  are  included  in  the  notion  of 
providence — the  preservation  and  the  government  of  all 
things.  "  God  governs  all  things  by  directing  and  disposing 
them  to  ihe  end  for  which  he  designed  them.  .  .  .  The 
providence  of  God  extends  to  all  creatures,  actions,  and 
things,  from  the  greatest  even  to  the  least."  This  is  the 
doctrine  of  providence,  taught  by  the  expositor  of  the 
Confession.  According  to  it,  God's  providence  extends  to 
all  actions,  from  the  greatest  to  the  least;  and  while  it 
regards  all  actions,  it  consists  in  directing  all  to  the  end  for 
which  he  designed  them,  so  that  all  actions  come  to  the 
very  end  for  which  God  designed.  Are  any  sinful,  he  de- 
signed them  as  such ;  and,  by  his  providence,  disposed  and 
directed  them  in  their  causes  and  development.  "To  solve 
the  difficulty  connected  with  this  point,"  says  Mr.  Shaw, 
"theologians  distinguish  between  an  action  and  its  quality. 
The  action,  abstractly  considered,  is  from  God,  for  no  action 
can  be  performed  without  the  concurrence  of  Providence ; 
but  the  sinfulness  of  the  action  proceeds  entirely  from  the 
creature."  The  first  part  of  this  sentence  declares  the  faith 
of  Calvinists ;  the  second  part  disclaims  a  consequence  of 
their  faith.  It  is  for  us  to  see  whether  such  a  disclaimer  is 
rational  and  consistent,  or  the  contrary.  The  proposition 
is,  that  the  action,  abstractly  considered,  is  from  God — God 
is  its  author — for  the  reason  that  no  action  can  be  performed 
without  his  concurrence  or  agency.     Now,  I  insist  that  the 


260  APPENDIX. 

proposition  positively  asserts,  that,  just  so  far  as  sins  arft 
actions,  God  is  their  author.  There  can  be  no  controversy 
here.  The  act  of  murder  and  adultery,  and  what  not,  is 
God's  act,  so  far  forth  as  it  is  an  act.  Now,  if  the  act  is 
his,  I  leave  it  to  the  metaphysics  of  Calvinists  to  determine 
whose  is  the  sin.  For  more  particular  argumentation  upon 
this  point,  I  refer  to  my  second  letter. 

3.  The  same  conclusion  is  inferred  from  the  Calvinian 
doctrine  of  a  Divine  plan.  "The  whole  universe  derives 
the  reason  of  its  existence  from  the  will  of  its  Creator,  and 
every  particular  being  and  event  in  the  universe  has  that 
connection  with  something  going  before  it,  by  which  it 
forms  a  part  of  the  plan  of  Providence."  If  sin  is  an 
event,  Mr.  Hill  thus  asserts  tliat  it  derives  the  reason  or 
cause  of  its  existence  from  the  will  of  God.  Its  cause  is 
in  God's  will,  and  yet  is  not  God  its  author.  Every  event 
in  the  universe  lias  connection  with  something  before  it — it 
is  an  effect;  and,  as  such,  forms  a  part  of  the  plan  of 
Providence ;  which  plan  is  the  cause  of  all,  or  that  some- 
thing goir^  before  all,  and  emanating  from  the  Divine  will, 
which  is  the  only  cause. 

In  accordance  with  this  view,  all  things  are  directly  and 
repeatedly  ascribed  to  the  necessary  operations  of  God's 

plan  by  Calvinists even  the  reprobation  and  damnation 

of  sinners,  with  the  causes  leading  thereto. 

"Whom  God  passes  by,  therefore,  he  reprobates,  and  for 
no  other  cause  than  his  determination  to  exclude  them  from 
the  inheritance  which  he  predestines  for  his  children." 
(Calvin.)  How  explicit  this  language !  how  impossible  to 
misunderstand  it !  Whom  God  passes  by— does  not  include 
in  the  decree  of  election — he  reprobates.  Not  because  of 
their  sins — not  for  any  thing  he  foresees  in  them;  but  for 
no  other  cause  than  his  determination  to  exclude  them  from 
the  inheritance  of  his  children.  Thus  honest  John  Calvin — 
and  with  him  agree  many  authors  quoted — scorns  to  seek 


APPENDIX.  263 

any  otlier  cause  for  the  reprobation  and  consequent  damna- 
tion of  some  men,  than  the  sovereign  purpose  of  God 
How  absurd  and  ridiculous  for  his  followers  to  attempt 
to  deny  and  demur,  when  we  charge  this  consequence 
upon  them — when  it  is  thus  explicitly  declared  and  ex- 
tensively elaborated  by  their  great  leader — in  the  con- 
clusion of  which  argument  he  says,  "Whence  it  follows 
that  the  cause  of  hardening — the  sinner  in  his  sins,  or 
working  his  sins  in  him  as  an  occasion  of  damnation — is 
the  secret  counsel  of  God ! "  First,  the  sinner  is  reprobated 
for  no  other  cause  but  the  purpose  of  God.  Thus  repro- 
bated, he  is  established  in  sin  by  the  secret  will  of  God, 
operating  to  that  purpose ;  and  then  he  is  damned,  because 
of  his  previous  reprobation  and  hardening. 

Hear  Calvin  again:  "That  the  reprobates  obey  not  the 
word  of  God  when  made  known  to  them,  is  justly  imputed 
to  the  wickedness  and  depravity  of  their  hearts,  provided 
it  be  at  the  same  time  stated  that  they  are  abandoned  to 
this  depravity,  because  they  have  been  raised  up,  by  a  just 
but  inscrutable  judgment  of  God,  to  display  his  glory  in 
their  condemnation."  Observe  this  passage.  The  disobedi- 
ence of  the  reprobates  may  be  attributed  to  their  depravity, 
but  their  depravity  is  attributable  to  the  fact  that  God 
raised  them  up,  fitted  them  for  destruction;  so  both  their 
actual  disobedience  and  natural  depravity  is  ascribable  to 
God's  purpose  in  raising  them  up,  even  their  eternal  de- 
struction. 

Presbyterians  of  the  nineteenth  century,  do  you  believe 
this?  Can  you  believe  a  system  necessarily  involving  it? 
Yet  I  show  you  that  such  is  the  miserable  doctrine  of  your 
Confession,  and  your  standard  authors — a  consequence  from 
which  there  is  no  escape,  but  by  a  total  abandonment  of 
the  whole.  And  will  you  be  content,  when  you  see,  by 
fair  logical  deductions,  such  consequences  fastened  upon 
you — consequences  at  which  your  reason  and  piety  equally 


262  APPENDIX. 

revolt?  Will  you  be  content,  when  the  only  reply  at 
tempted  by  your  leaders  to  fair  and  unavoidable  argu 
ments  and  proofs,  is,  "We  don't  believe  it?"  Will  this 
mode  of  defense  satisfy  Presbyterians?  Is  your  Con- 
fession capable  of  no  better  a  support?  And  still  will 
you  cling  to  a  system,  beset  and  encompassed  with  conse- 
quences, at  the  announcement  of  which  you  are  stunned — 
which  I  do  not  marvel  that  you  spurn  with  indignant 
vehemence?  But  why  shall  you  cling  to  premises,  neces- 
sarily involving  such  conclusions  ? 

4.  That  God  necessitates  the  sinful  acts  of  men,  is  un- 
avoidable upon  the  Calvinian  view  of  foreknowledge.  Gal- 
rinists  hold  that  God  cannot  foreknow  any  event  as  future, 
only  as  he  perceives  it  connected  with  some  other  thing  as 
a  cause  infallibly  and  necessarily  to  produce  it — all  future 
things  are  foreknown  as  effects  springing  from  a  first  cause 
by  successive  links  of  attachment,  or  as  a  succession  of 
causes  and  effects.  According  to  this,  it  is  manifest  that 
the  first  cause  is  the  actual  and  real  cause  of  every  suc- 
cessive link.  But  each  sin  is  a  link,  and  therefore  the  first 
cause  is  the  actual  cause  of  each  sin.«^  It  matters  not 
though  they  be  separated  by  ten  thousand  intervening 
links,  scattered  through  as  many  ages. 

5.  The  same  fact  is  deducible  from  the  reasonings  of 
Calvinists,  in  regard  to  the  Arminian  doctrine,  that  the 
mind  originates  its  own  volitions.  It  is  said  by  Edwards, 
and  it  is  common  to  Calvinists  to  say  so,  that  such  a  view 
renders  the  vohtions  of  men  an  efiect  without  a  cause.  By 
which  they  deny  the  mind  of  man  to  possess  the  nature  of 
a  cause ;  or,  in  other  words,  they  thus  deny  its  agency,  and 
assert  its  mere  passivity.  All  its  motions  are  mere  effects, 
of  which  it  is  the  passive  instrument :  it  causes  no  volition 
itself.  Where  is  the  cause?  It  is  not  in  mind.  It  is 
finally  in  God!  But  if  God  causes  the  motion,  and  the 
motion  is  sinful,  who  causes  the  sin  ? 


APPENDIX.  263 

"  If  the  determinations  of  moral  agents  are  thus  certainly 
directed  by  motives,  it  is  plain  that  the  Almighty,  whose 
will  gave  existence  to  the  universe,  and  by  whose  pleasure 
every  cause  operates,  and  every  effect  is  produced,  gives 
their  origin  to  these  determinations,  by  the  execution  of  the 
great  plan  of  his  providence ;  for  as  there  entered  into  his 
plan,  all  those  efficient  causes,  whose  successive  operations 
produce  the  motions  and  changes  of  the  material  world,  so 
there  are  brought  forward  in  succession,  by  the  execution 
of  his  plan,  all  those  objects  which  present  themselves  to 
the  mind  as  final  causes."     (Hill.) 

This  quotation  first  assumes  that  the  determinations  of 
moral  agents  are  created  by  motives,  as  final  causes.  It 
is  then  assumed  that  the  Almighty,  by  whose  will  all  such 
final  causes  operate,  causes  the  determinations  produced  by 
them ;  and  this  efficiently,  inasmuch  as  all  such  motives — 
final  causes — are  brought  forward  by  the  execution  or 
direct  operation  of  his  providence.  Well,  now,  are  these 
determinations  sinful?  If  so,  and  God  caused  the  deter- 
mination, who  caused  the  sin? 

"For  according 'to  the  view  of  the  Divine  foreknowledge, 
which  is  essential  to  the  Calvinistic  system,  all  things  are 
brought  into  being  by  the  execution  of  the  Divine  decree, 
so  that  no  circumstance,  in  the  manner  of  the  existence  of 
any  individual,  can  depend  upon  the  conduct  of  that  indi- 
vidual; but  all  that  distinguishes  him  from  others,  must 
originate  in  the  mind  that  formed  the  decree.^^  (Hill.) 
Every  thing  peculiar  in  the  conduct  or  character  of  the 
individual— of  each  and  every  individual — originates  in  the 
mind  that  formed  the  decree.  If  he  is  sinful,  therefore 
this  originated  with  God ! 

In  the  trial  of  Dr.  Beecher,  Dr.  Beecher  accuses  Dr. 
Wilson  as  follows:  "Dr.  Wilson  has  made  a  distinct 
avowal,  that  free  agency  and  moral  obligation  to  obey 
law,  do  not  include  any  ability  of  any  kind.''     To  which 


26'i  APPENDIX. 

Dr.  Wilson  replied  directly  in  so  many  words,  "With, 
respect  to  fallen  man  I  do!"  "Now,"  says  Di.  Wilson, 
*'  let  us  look  at  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  with  this 
principle  in  view,  that  the  state  of  the  man  determines  the 
will.  The  will  is  dlwaijs  at  liberty:  choice  is  an  effect 
always,  and  not  a  cause!  It  is  always  produced  freely. 
When  the  mind  chooses,  it  always  chooses  freely.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  bound  will.  Hence,  all  do  what  is 
good  or  evil  voluntarily,  in  view  of  a  motive,  and  according 
to  the  state  of  mind  in  which  they  are.  Take  man  in  a 
state  of  innocence.  God  made  him  upright;  in  his  own 
image;  his  choice  is  free,  and  he  chooses  what  is  right; 
but  not  from  any  poiver  in  the  will.  The  will,  as  I  have 
said,  has  no  power  to  operate  on  any  thing  but  the  body. 
His  uprightness  was  in  the  right  state  of  the  affections, 
and  the  luminous  state  of  the  understanding,  in  the  correct 
state  of  the  memory,  and  in  his  entire  moral  rectitude  in 
the  Divine  image.  His  will  was  free  to  do  good  ivhile  no 
temptation  was  presented  to  it.  He  had  no  motive  but  his 
accountableness  to  God,  and  his  love  to  God^  His  will 
operated  according  to  the  state  of  the  man.  But  now 
look  at  him  in  another  state — the  state  of  temptation. 
Motives  ai'e  now  presented  to  him  by  the  arch  tempter, 
but  not  to  his  will  at  all;  they  are  presented  to  his  under- 
standing and  appetites — to  his  taste  for  beauty.  The  fruit 
is  pleasant  to  the  eye ;  and  what  was  the  effect  ?  The  will 
was  not  trapped  in  any  other  Avay  than  this :  the  tempta- 
tion addressed  to  these  powers  was  so  strong,  that  it  over- 
came the  dictates  of  judgment,  and  the  man  chose  wrcng. 
Volition  moves  the  body:  the  mind  moves  the  will;  and 
the  mind  is  moved  by  that  without,  which  is  adapted  to  its 
constitution."  Now  who  moved  that  without,  and  made 
the  constitution? 

The  foregoing  is  the  language  of  Dr.  Wilson,  who,  for 
forty  years,  occupied  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  this 


AITENDIX.  265 

city,  and  during  his  long  life  a  prominent  man  in  the 
Church  in  the  west:  certainly,  for  ability  and  opportunity, 
inferior  to  none  of  his  school,  and  therefore  as  reliable  an 
exponent  as  any  other.  But  now  observe  his  honest  and 
candid  admission,  on  an  occasion  when,  of  all  others,  he 
would  be  most  accurate,  and  on  a  point  where  he  would 
be  most  critically  prepared :  "  Free  agency  and  moral  obli- 
gation to  obey  law,  with  respect  to  fallen  man,  do  not 
include  any  ability  of  any  hindP'  According  to  this,  free 
agency,  as  held  by  Calvinists,  does  not  include  ability  of 
any  kind.  A  man  is  a  free  agent,  though  he  have  no 
power  at  all !  He  is  also  responsible  to  obey  law,  though 
he  have  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  do  so ! 

But  he  more  fully  unfolds  his  view,  as  above;  and  no 
one  can  read  the  quotation,  it  seems  to  me,  without  sympa- 
thizing with  the  sincere  and  able  author,  in  the  manifest 
confusion  and  self-contradiction  in  which  he  involves  him- 
self. "The  will  is  always  at  liberty;"  yet  its  choice  is 
always  caused  by  a  foreign  agent!  "When  the  mind 
chooses,  it  always  chooses  freely;"  yet  it  has  no  kind  of 
ability  whatever,  but  is  ruled  by  the  motives  in  every  case ! 
"There  is  no  such  thing  as  bound  will;"  but  it  is  always 
an  effect,  and  not  a  cause!  Observe,  further,  his  phi- 
losophy of  the  will  Dr.  AVilson  carries  back  beyond  or 
behind  the  fall.  Of  man,  in  innocence,  he  says,  "  His  will 
was  free  to  do  good,  while  no  temptation  was  presented  to  it;'' 
but  what  is  implied  in  this  ?  When  temptation  came,  the 
will  was  not  free  to  do  good,  but  bound  to  do  evil,  or  to 
yield.  This,  indeed,  he  does  not  leave  us  to  infer,  but 
expressly  states  that  the  temptation  presented  to  the  first 
pair  was  such  that  it  overcame,  by  its  strength,  the  mind — 
"the  mind  moves  the  will,  and  was  itself  moved  by  that 
without;  and  thus  man  fell  under  the  force  of  a  tempta- 
tion which  he  had  no  power  to  resist.  He  fell,  therefore, 
when,  under  the  circumstances,  he  had  no  power  to  stand  I 

23 


266  APPENDIX. 

And  3^et  he  was  free  in  doing  what  he  had  no  power  U 
avoid ! 

Dr.  Twisse,  the  Prolocutor  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
in  conformity  to  whose  views  the  Confession  of  Faith  was 
formed,  holds  the  followinor  lancruage:  "All  things  come 
to  pass  by  the  efficacious  and  irresistible  will  of  God." 
Again:  "It  is  impossible  that  any  thing  should  ever  he  done 
hut  that  to  tohich  God  impels  the  ivill  of  manr  Again: 
"  God  is  the  author  of  that  action  which  is  sinful,  by  his 
irresistible  will." 

Piscator:  "God  made  Adam  and  Eve  to  this  very  pur- 
pose, that  they  might  be  tempted  and  led  into  sin ;  and  by 
force  of  his  decree,  it  could  not  otherwise  be  but  they 
must  sin." 

Again :  "  God  foresees  nothing  but  what  he  has  decreed, 
and  his  decree  precedes  his  knowledge." 

Again :  "  For  we  neither  can  do  more  good  than  we  do, 
nor  less  evil  than  we  do,  because  God,  from  eternity,  has 
precisely  decreed  that  both  the  good  and  the  evil  should 
be  so  done." 

Again  :  "  God  procures  adultery,  cursing,  lyings."  Again : 
"The  reprobates  who  were  predestinated  to  damnation,  and 
the  causes  of  damnation,  are  created  to  that  end,  that  they 
may  live  wickedly,  and  be  vessels  full  of  the  dregs  of  sin." 

Peter  Martyr:  "God  cannot  be  termed  the  author  of 
sin,  though  he  is  the  cause  of  those  actions  which  are 
sins.  ...  He  supplies  wicked  men  with  opportunities 
of  sinning,  and  inclines  their  hearts  thereto.  He  blinds, 
deceives,  and  seduces  them.  He,  by  his  working  on  their 
hearts,  bends  and  stirs  them  up  to  do  evil." 

Zanchius:  "  God's  first  constitution  was,  that  some  should 
be  destined  to  eternal  ruin ;  and  to  this  end  their  sins  were 
ordained,  and  denial  of  grace  in  order  to  their  sins. 
Both  the  elect  and  the  reprobates  were  foreordained  to  sin, 
IS  sin,  that  the  glory  of  God  might  be  declared  thereby." 


APPENDIX.  267 

Zuinglius:  "When  God  makes  angels  or  men  sin,  he 
:\oes  not  sin  himself,  because  he  does  not  break  any  law." 

VVitsius,  in  summing  up  his  reasonings,  uses  the  follow- 
ing language:  "If  all  these  truths  thus  demonstrated  be 
joined  and  linked  together,  they  will  produce  that  conclu- 
sion which  we  laid  down — namely,  from  all  this  may  be 
inferred,  by  plain  consequence,  that  man  could  not  hut 
fall  on  account  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Divine  prescience, 
and  of  that  necessity  which  they  call  a  necessity  of  conse- 
quences. For  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfection, 
that  any  decree  of  God  should  be  rendered  void,  or  that 
the  event  should  not  be  answerable  to  it.  For  if  all 
creatures  depend  on  God  in  acting — if  he  not  only  con- 
curs with  them  when  they  act,  but  excites  them  to  act — 
if  that  excitation  he  so  powerful  as  that  on  supposing  it  the 
effect  cannot  hut  follow — if  God,  with  that  same  efficac7j, 
influences  vicious  actions  so  far  as  they  are  physical — if 
the  creature  cannot  give  its  actions  their  due  moral  good- 
ness without  God,  it  infallibly  follows  that  Adam,  God 
himself  moving  him  to  understand,  will,  and  eat,  could  not 
hut  understand,  ivill,  and  eat,  and  God  not  giving  goodness 
to  those  actions,  man  could  not  understand,  ivill,  and  eat  in 
a  right  manner.'"  Honest  Witsius!  worthy  of  imitation! 
He,  you  see,  does  not  hesitate,  with  Calvin,  his  illustrious 
model,  to  confess  that,  in  regard  to  the  first,  as  well  as 
all  other  vicious  acts,  man  acts  only  as  coerced  by  Divine 
influence. 

How,  in  the  face  of  all  these  declarations,  and  the  many 
others  cited  in  foregoing  letters,  can  Calvinists,  with  any 
candor,  accuse  us  of  misrepresenting  them,  or  attempt 
themselves  to  frame  an  escape  by  a  resort  to  the  doctrine 
of  permissive  decrees  ?  I  confess  I  am  at  a  loss  to  under- 
stand how  good  men  reconcile  their  conduct  on  this  point; 
but  the  wrong  I  must  believe  is  not  in  the  heart,  however 
difficult  it  may  be  to  ascribe  it  to  the  head. 


L'OS  APPENDIX. 

NUMBER    III. 

In  the  Presbyterian  of  the  West,  Dr.  Rice  honors  mc 
with  a  notice,  Avhich  I  herewith  subjoin.  It  is  all  given, 
bill  in  paragraphs,  followed  by  replies,  to  render  the  answer 
more  direct. 

''Foster  on  Calvinism. — We  have  not  intended  to  enter 
into  a  regular  discussion  with  Mr.  Foster  on  Calvinism. 
The  reasons  are  obvious.  We  were  previously  engaged  in 
a  discussion  with  Dr.  Simpson,  on  some  other  points  of 
difference  between  Methodists  and  Presbyterians;  and  we 
considered  Mr.  Foster's  letters  simply  as  a  plan  to  divert 
attention  from  the  weak  points  of  his  faith  we  are  exposing. 
We  do  not  choose  to  permit  the  plan  to  succeed." 

Doctor,  you  must  excuse  us  for  smiling  at  this.  It  is 
impolite,  I  know ;  but  nature  will  out.  "  A  plan  to  divert 
attention  from  the  weak  points  of  our  faith  you  are  ex- 
posing!'' Truly,  we  have  great  need  to  be  alarmed  Your 
assault  is  so  potent,  and  your  success  is  so  signal! 

"  If  Mr.  Foster  desired  a  discussion  with  us,  courtesy,  as 
we  think,  would  have  required  him  to  wait  till  we  were 
through  with  Dr.  Simpson.  Besides,  if  he  desired  a  dis- 
cussion with  us,  he  would  have  proposed  it,  and  allowed  us 
to  have  some  hand  in  arranging  preliminaries;  and  have 
made  an  arrangement  to  have  both  sides  published  in  both 
papers.  Having  thrust  himself  forward,  whilst  a  discussion 
with  Dr.  Simpson  was  pending,  and  without  making  any  of 
thg  usual  arrangement  of  preliminaries,  it  is  rather  sur- 
prising with  what  confidence  and  with  what  vaunting-  he 
has  claimed  our  particular  notice." 

"If  Mr.  Foster  desired  a  discussion  with  us!"  Strange, 
Doctor — ^I  had  almost  said,  shame !  Do  you  not  know  that 
your  own  imprudent  intermeddling  with  your  neighbors 
provoked  the  whole  controversy,  which  now  engrosses  our 
columns  ?  Why,  now,  do  you  talk  as  thougli  we  sought  con- 
tioversy  with  you.     When  a  man  repels  the  assassin,  does  he 


APPENDIX.  260 

court  the  figlit  ?  Have  you  forgotten  your  haughty  repliei^ 
to  our  published  deprecations  of  the  whole  matter? — that 
even  in  the  commencement  of  these  letters,  you  were  in 
exceeding  good  heart?  That  your  tune  has  changed,  is  not 
without  cause.  That  courtesy  should  have  induced  me  to 
wait  till  you  were  done  with  Dr.  Simpson,  I  an\  almost 
inclined  to  admit;  for  your  troubles  ought  not  to  be  in- 
creased. But,  then,  did  you  not  court  it?  Did  you  not 
proclaim  your  readiness  and  resources?  As  to  the  matter 
of  preliminaries,  did  you  stop  to  make  preliminary  arrange- 
ments when  you  commenced  your  abusive  misrepresen- 
tations of  Methodism?  And  why  did  you  not  think  of 
this  before,  when  you  promised,  at  the  appearance  of  my 
first  letter,  to  assist  me  in  the  discussion?  There  was  no 
complaint  then !  And  you  talk  about  arranging  to  pubhsh 
our  articles  in  both  papers !  Do  you  not  know  that  nothing 
could  induce  you  to  publish  my  letters  in  your  columns  ? 
And  have  you  forgotten  that  I  promised  to  publish  your 
replies,  whether  you  would  insert  my  letters  or  not,  if  you 
would  attempt  a  candid  examination  of  the  subject?  This 
attempt  of  yours  to  present  matters  in  a  false  light,  and  to 
elicit  sympathy,  comes  with  a  poor  grace  from  Dr.  Rice. 
You  are  surprised  that  I  address  myself  so  confidently  to 
you !  Did  you  not  tell  us  that  you  were  the  man  ?  Have 
you  not  put  yourself  forward  as  the  great  champion  ?  Have 
you  not  assailed  us?  and,  then,  does  it  surprise  you  when 
we  take  up  your  vaunting  challenge,  and  repel  your  virulent 
attacks?     0,  sir,  it  is  too  late  to  supplicate  pity ! 

"We  propose,  however,  in  connection  with  our  preceding 
articles  on  Divine  decrees,  to  pay  our  respects  briefly  tu 
Mr.  Foster.  He  has  quoted  brief  extracts  from  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  from  Calvinistic  writers ;  but  it  is  easy 
for  one  who  takes  up  a  doctrine  without  understanding  it, 
to  make  quotations  from  writers,  so  partial,  or  so  com- 
pletely  severed  from  explanations  and  qualifications  given. 


270  APPENDIX. 

as  entirely  to  misrepresent  them.  This  Mr.  Foster  haj 
done — we  do  not  say  intentionally." 

"  He  has  quoted  brief  sections  of  the  Confession."  Do 
you  not  know  that  I  have  quoted  whole  chapters  of  your 
Confession,  without  the  omission  of  a  word?  How  can 
you,  in  sight  of  this  fact,  print,  to  be  read  by  your  readers, 
who  will  never  see  my  letters,  that  I  have  garbled  your 
Confession?  Why  have  you  done  this?  You  say,  I  have 
misrepresented  your  authors.  Will  you  point  out  a  single 
instance  ?  Will  you  take  any  quotation  I  have  made,  and 
show  that  I  have  put  a  meaning  on  it  contrary  to  the 
meaning  of  the  author?  Do  this,  or  your  readers  may 
have  occasion  to  question  your  accuracy,  not  to  say  candor. 

"From  his  quotations,  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that, 
according:  to  the  faith  of  Calvinists,  the  decree  of  God  is 
the  efficient  cause,  not  onl}-  of  the  acts  of  men  and  angels, 
but  of  the  affections  and  passions  under  which  they  are 
performed.  Hence  he  concludes  that  men  can  no  more 
avoid  the  murders,  blasphemies,  etc.,  which  they  commit, 
than  theyxould  resist  the  fiat  of  Omnipotence,  or  subvert 
the  purposes  of  the  Almighty — that  sin  results  as  an  effect 
from  the  Divine  decree  as  its  cause.  It  is  upon  this  grossly 
false  view  of  the  subject  that  all  his  objections  to  Calvinism 
are  based,  such  as  that,  according  to  this  doctrine,  *  God  is 
the  author  of  sin;  man's  free  agency  is  destroyed,'  etc. 
The  correction  of  the  false  view  of  the  doctrine,  of  course, 
destroys  the  force  of  his  objections." 

"From  his  quotation,  he  comes  to  the  conclusion,"  etc. 
Now,  Doctor,  the  question  here  is,  did  the  quotations  war- 
rant the  conclusion  I  came  to  ?  If  they  did,  Calvinism  is 
guilty.  If  not,  will  you  please  make  it  appear?  This  is 
the  point  in  a  nutshell.  No  dodging  here.  Come  up 
squarely  to  the  work. 

"Upon  this  grossly  false  view  of  the  subject  all  Ins 
objections  are  based."     Why  don't  you  show  that  I  has'e 


APPENDIX.  271 

taken  a  false  view  of  the  subject?  Why  assert  and  reit- 
erate this  for  the  ten  thousandth  time?  Are  assertions 
arguments  among  Calvinists  ? 

"The  correction  of  this  false  view  of  the  doctrine,  of 
course,  destroys  the  force  of  his  objections.'*  Exactly  so. 
Doctor;  but  will  you  correct  this  false  view,  not  by  cant» 
but  by  reasoning?  This  is  precisely  what  we  want!  Don't 
waste  your  time ;  I  know  it  is  precious, 

"  On  the  general  subject  we  make  the  following  remarks : 
1 .  If  Mr.  Foster  desired  a  fair  and  intelligible  discussion  of 
the  difference  between  Methodists  and  Presbyterians,  he 
should  have  stated  precisely  wherein  they  differ.  But, 
though  he  has  attempted  to  state  the  doctrine  of  Presby- 
terians, he  gave  no  account  of  that  of  the  Methodists.  Do 
the  latter  hold  that  God  has  no  purposes  or  decrees  at  all  ? 
Do  they  deny  that  God  foreordained  any  one  event  which 
was  to  be  fulfilled  by  the  free  agency  of  man  ?  Why  does 
Mr.  Foster  give  us  no  light  on  this  subject  ?  How  can  we 
determine  which  of  two  systems  is  the  better,  or  more 
accordant  with  Scripture  truth,  unless  we  have  them  fairly 
stated,  that  we  may  compare  them  ?  Why  had  Mr.  Foster 
no  desire  to  make  the  public  acquainted  with  the  Methodist 
faith  on  this  important  subject  ?  " 

This  would  be  rather  amusing,  if  it  were  not  unkind  to 
be  amused  at  the  vexation  and  confusion  of  a  fellow- worm. 
It  is  now  the  third  time  you  have  turned  attention  to  this 
subject,  and  one  of  your  correspondents  condoles  with  you 
in  your  distress ;  it  has  evidently  perplexed  you  not  a  httle. 
But,  Doctor,  how  came  you  to  imagine  that  I  ought  to 
write  about  Methodist  doctrine?  I  assure  you  I  had  no 
such  intention ;  I  saw  no  occasion  for  it.  My  object  was 
simply  to  examine  your  faith,  and  show  my  objections  to  it. 
If  you  have  any  desire  to  know  what  Methodism  is,  no  one 
will  question  your  right;  and,  if  you  find  objections,  in  due 
time,  we  will  most  probably  assist  you  to  examine  them 


272  APPENDIX. 

This  absurd  struggle  to  keep  away  from  the  issues,  and  tc 
escape  from  an  examination  of  the  objections  I  have  made 
to  your  system,  is  fruitless;  men  will  understand  it,  and 
attribute  it  to  its  proper  cause.  Put  an  end  to  all  this  los? 
of  time,  and  labor,  and  self- confusion,  and  come  up  to  the 
work  like  a  man;  take  up  my  letters  consecutively,  and 
demolish  them ;  you  say  it  is  an  easy  work.  Many  of  youi 
readers,  to  my  personal  knowledge,  are  extremely  anxiou.« 
to  see  it  done.  Many  of  mine  are  anxious  to  see  if  it  can 
be  done.  You  have  every  facility;  my  arguments  and 
authorities  are  before  you.  When  you  have  done  this, 
you  will  have  sustained  Calvinism.  If,  then,  you  desire  to 
examine  other  subjects  connected  with  the  doctrines  of 
Methodism,  you  will  find  no  foreign  matters  introduced; 
no  evasion ;  no  special  pleading.  You  have  provoked  this 
controversy.  Nothing  else  would  do  you.  Now,  then, 
let  there  be  a  direct,  candid,  Christian,  thorough  work 
made  of  it. 

"  The  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  clearly  stated 
in  the  Westminster  Confession.  Whatever  individuals  may 
have  said,  more  than  is  there  written,  or  different  from  it, 
our  Church  is  not  responsible  for.  We  make  this  remark, 
not  because  we  believe  that  any  one  of  the  writers  quoted 
by  Mr.  Foster  has  materially  departed  from  the  doctrine,  as 
there  stated,  but  because  a  discussion  concerning  the  views 
of  each  of  them  would  fill  a  volume,  instead  of  a  few 
columns  of  a  newspaper." 

I  agree  with  you  here,  Doctor,  that  the  Westminster 
Confession  is  the  standard  of  your  faith.  Hence,  in  making 
my  statements  of  your  doctrine,  I  have  invariably  quoted 
from  it  fully  first,  and  I  have  called  in  other  authors  of 
great  authority  among  you — Calvin,  Hill,  Witsius,  Dwight, 
Edwards,  Boston,  Shaw,  Dickinson,  Ridgley,  Chalmers, 
Toplady,  Zanchius,  etc. — simply  to  show  the  common  view 
taken  of  these  doctrines  by  yourselves.     I  was  not  willing 


APPENDIX.  273 

to  venture  an  interpretation  of  your  faith  without  your 
own  sanction,  knowing  what  a  wonderful  faciUty  you  have 
in  the  use  of  such  epithets  as  "  misrepresentation,  ignorance, 
do  not  understand,'"  etc.  My  deductions  are  all  based  upon 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  interpreted  by  these  authors; 
and,  if  you  will  show  that  they  are  not,  I  2>'>'omise  a  public 
recantation  of  the  charges  made  against  you.  But  let  me 
remind  you  again,  that  the  question  is  not,  whether  your 
Confession  and  these  authors  teach  an  opposite  doctrine 
to  that  which  I  have  derived  from  them,  but  do  they  tea,ck 
this?  When  you  attempt  to  derive  an  opposite  doctrine 
from  them,  without  correcting  and  removing  my  reasonings 
and  quotations,  you  only  prove  that  you  have  a  contra- 
dictory creed,  liable  to  all  the  objections  I  bring  against  it, 
and,  the  more  grievous  than  all  the  rest,  that  it  diametri- 
cally contradicts  itself,  and  its  defenders  destroy  themselves. 
First,  show  that  the  arguments  with  which  I  sustain  my 
interpretation  are  faulty,  and  then  favor  us  with  your  new 
translation. 

"Now,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  we  have  first  the 
general  declaration,  that  'God,  from  all  eternity,  did,  by 
the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and 
unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass;  yet  so  as 
thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence 
offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or 
contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  estab- 
lished.' (Chap,  iii,  sec.  i.)  We  have  a  particular  explanation 
of  the  doctrine.  The  shorter  Catechism  teaches  that  God 
executeth  his  decrees  in  the  works  of  creative  providence. 
The  fourth  chapter  of  the  Confession  states  what  God  did, 
in  fulfillment  of  his  decrees  in  creation.  To  tlie  doctrine 
of  this  chapter  Mr.  Foster  has  taken  no  exception.  In  the 
fifth  chapter,  we  have  stated  the  fulfillment  of  the  Divine 
decrees  by  the  providence  of  God.  After  stating  that  Goa 
upholds,  directs,  disposes,  and  governs  all  creatures,  actions. 


274  APPENDIX. 

and  things,  to  his  own  glory,  it  employs  the  following 
language :  *  Thf  almighty  power,  unsearchable  wisdom,  and 
infinite  goodness  of  God,  so  far  manifest  themselves  in  his 
providence,  that  it  extendeth  itself  even  to  the  first  fall, 
and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and  that  not  by  a  hare 
permission,  but  such  as  hath  joined  with  it  a  most  wise 
and  powerful  hounding,  and  otherwise  ordering  and  govern- 
ing them,  in  a  manifold  dispensation  to  his  own  holy  ends ; 
yet  so  as  the  sinfulness  thereof  proceedeth  only  from  the 
creature,  and  not  from  God ! '  How  did  the  providence  of 
God  extend  to  the  fall  of  man  ?  The  sixth  chapter  answers : 
♦  This  their  sin  God  was  pleased  to  permit,  according  to  his 
wise  and  holy  counsel,  having  proposed  to  order  it  according 
to  his  own  glory.' 

*'  Now,  concerning  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  and  all 
sins  of  men  and  angels,  the  Confession  states  two  things : 
1.  God  decreed,  or  chose  to  permit  them.  2.  That  he  not 
only  determined  to  permit  them  to  have  sinful  inclinations, 
but  powerfully  to  bound,  order,  and  govern  their  actions, 
so  as  to  bring  to  pass  his  own  wise  designs.  God  knew 
the  design  of  Satan  to  tempt  Eve.  He  had  power  to  pre- 
vent it.  For  wise  reasons,  he  chose  to  permit  him  to  tempt 
her,  and  to  permit  her  to  sin.  Was  her  free  agency  de- 
stroyed by  this  permission?  Or  was  it  destroyed  by  the 
purpose  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  the  evil  designs  of 
Satan  and  the  sin  of  Eve  ?  Or  did  either  of  these  things 
make  God  the  author  of  her  sin?  God  decreed  to  harden 
the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  so  that  he  would  not  let  the  Is- 
raelites go  out  of  Egypt,  and  he  did  harden  it.  (Exodus 
iv,  21,  and  vii,  13.)  By  this  hardening,  the  purposes  of 
God  are  fulfilled.  Was  the  free  agency  of  Pharaoh  de- 
stroyed? Did  God  become  the  author  of  his  sins?  God 
decreed  to  send  the  Assyrian  king  against  the  rebellious 
Jews,  to  chastise  them,  and  he  did  send  him.  (Isaiah 
X,  5-15.)      And  yet  he   punished  the  king  for  his  sins, 


APPENDIX. 


275 


committed  in  that  very  war  against  tlie  Jews.     Will  Mr. 
Foster  tell  us  how  he  explains  this  plain  Bible  fact  ? 

"  God  permits  the  sinful  dispositions  of  men ;  and  he  so 
controls  them  that  he  accomplishes  by  them  his  holy  pur- 
poses ;  and  this  is  precisely  what  he  decreed  to  do,  and  no 
more.  Francis  Turretine  has  long  been  used  as  a  standard 
author,  by  Presbyterians.  How  does  he  answer  the  objec- 
tion that  the  doctrine  of  Divine  decrees  makes  God  the 
author  of  sin  ?  He  says,  '  The  decree  does  not  flow  into 
the  thing,  and  is  not  effective  of  the  evil,  but  only  per- 
missive and  directive !  God  simply  permits  and  directs,  or 
controls,  and,  therefore,  is  not  the  author  of  sin;  or,  as 
Solomon  says,  "  A  man's  heart  deviseth  his  way,  but  the 
Lord  directeth  his  steps."  ' 

"  When  the  doctrine  is  thus  correctly  and  briefly  stated, 
all  the  potent  objections  so  triumphantly  urged  by  Mr. 
Foster  become,  not  only  powerless,  but  almost  ridiculous. 
More  on  this  subject  hereafter,  if  we  are  spared." 

Here,  Doctor,  you  reiterate  an  argument  for  the  third 
time,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  Divine  decrees.  I  must, 
therefore,  notice  it,  to  save  your  printers  the  trouble  of 
setting  up  the  type  again,  or,  perhaps,  you  might  lay  it 
aside  to  insert  from  week  to  week,  to  avoid  the  trouble  and 
expense  of  composition.  I  cannot  help  but  think  it  re- 
markable. Doctor,  that,  though  you  have  written,  directly 
and  indirectly,  five  lengthy  articles  upon  my  letters,  you 
have  not  named  one  of  my  arguments  or  quotations !  For 
some  cause,  you  cannot  help  but  write,  though  with  evident 
irresolution  and  dispiritedness ;  and,  for  some  other  cause, 
you  cannot  venture  to  attack  one  of  my  arguments,  by  way 
of  examination  and  refutation.  Why  is  this,  Doctor?  Can 
you  tell?  You  seek  to  avoid  all  the  objections  I  alledge 
against  your  doctrine  of  decrees,  by  assuming  that  I  mis- 
represent you.  I  quote  from  your  distinguished  authors,  to 
show  you  that  the  view  I  take  is  their  view.     You  don't 


276  APPENDIX. 

examine  my  quotations  at  all !  I  show  you  that  these 
authors  are  against  you.  You  answer  not  a  word !  I  make 
an  argument,  from  the  language  of  the  Confession  itself, 
against  your  interpretation.  You  say  nothing  in  reply !  I 
show,  from  the  system,  that  your  interpretation  is  discord- 
ant.    Not  a  response  do  you  make ! 

You  know  very  well  that,  before  you  can  defend  your 
doctrine  of  decrees,  it  must  be  defined.  The  whole  con- 
troversy, at  present,  is  upon  this  point.  What  is  youi 
doctrine?  I  have  defined  it.  You  disagree  with  me.  I 
quote  from  your  authors  to  prove  that  I  am  correct,  and 
make  additional  arguments  to  the  same  point.  Now,  mani- 
festly, the  first  thing  to  do,  is  to  settle  this  point.  Will 
you  attend  to  this?  No  evasions.  And  the  way  to  settle 
it,  is  to  show  that  the  arguments  which  I  employ,  to  sustain 
my  interpretation,  are  not  competent.  When  you  examine 
foregoing  arguments,  you  shall  have  others,  and  if  you  can 
unsettle  ray  interpretation,  you  gain  your  point.  Come,  sir, 
with  good  heart;  the  path  is  plain  before  you.  Your  pres- 
ent course  is  like  the  Irishman's,  when  brought  before  the 
court,  on  charge  of  a  trifling  theft.  It  being  proved  that 
Paddy  was  guilty,  the  judge  proceeded  to  condemn  him, 
on  the  testimony  of  some  witness  who  had  actually  seen 
him  perpetrate  the  theft.  Whereupon  Paddy  very  quickly 
replied,  with  all  the  vivacity  of  his  countrymen,  "May  it 
plase  yer  honor,  I  can  bring  fifty  men  that  didn't  see  me 
take  the  thing  at  all,  at  all,  so  I  can." 

But  in  dismissing  this  subject,  one  word  more  to  you.  I 
am  heartily  glad  that  you  renew  your  promise  to  attend  to 
this  matter  hereafter.  Don't  forget  this  promise ;  and  at- 
tend to  it  right.  I  shall  not  promise  to  notice  any  future 
equivocations.  If  you  desire  to  discuss,  and  will  do  so,  we 
shall  find  great  pleasure  in  having  your  co-operation,  both 
with  respect  to  your  doctrine  and  our  own;  but,  in  any 
event,  we  shall  progress  with  our  letters,  and  not  complain 


APPENDIX.  27^ 

at  jou,  whatever  course  3^011  may  deem  best  in  the  defense. 
I  doubt  not  you  know  perfectly  well  which  is  the  wisest 
course  for  you  to  pursue.     I  had  almost  said,  I  can  but 
admire  your  shrewdness. 
Four  questions : 

1.  Do  you  not  know  that  a  decree,  or  purpose  to  permit 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  is  not  a  decree  that  the  things 
should  come  to  pass? 

2.  Do  you  not  know  that  when  you  assume  the  doctrine 
of  permission,  you  become  an  Arminian,  and  desert  Cal- 
vinism ? 

3.  Do  you  not  know  that  all  your  questions  and  Scrip- 
tural arguments,  in  the  above,  have  no  bearing  whatever 
on  the  points  between  you  and  myself,  and  are  mere  sub- 
terfuges and  evasions? 

4.  Do  you  not  know  that  I  defend  the  doctrine  of  per- 
mission, against  you,  who  deny  it? 

God  permits  whatsoever  comes  to  pass !  Is  this  Calvin- 
ism? or  have  I  not  proved  that  your  doctrine  is,  that  he  ne- 
cessitates whatsoever  comes  to  pass?  Come,  Doctor,  no 
equivocation.  Meet  the  matter  squarely;  let  us  get  at 
the  truth. 

NUMBER  IV. 

^'Foster  on  Calvinism. — As  already  we  have  proved,  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  teaches,  concerning  the  sins  of 
angels  and  men,  that  God  decreed,  or  purposed  to  permit 
and  to  direct.  This  is  all.  Mr.  Foster,  however,  is  in 
difficulty  about  two  points,  (see  his  2d  Letter,)  namely,  1. 
He  is  under  the  impression  that  sin  is  a  thing.  He  reasons 
thus :  •  God's  decree  [according  to  Calvinists]  is  the  ne- 
cessity of  things;  but  sin  is  something;  therefore,  God's 
decree  is  the  necessity,  or  necessitating  cause  of  sin.'  We 
reply,  that  sin  is  not  a  thing,  but  a  quality;  and,  therefore, 
when  it  is  said,  that  God's  decree  is  the  necessity  of  things. 
It  does  not  follow^  that  it  is  the  necessitating  cause  of  sin. 


278  APPENDIX. 

Such  a  blunder  looks  badly  in  a  man  who  evidently  glories 
ill  his  acuteness  and  in  his  logical  powers.  Again,  he  says, 
*  God  decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass ;  but  sin  comes  to 
pass;  therefore,  God  decreed  sin.'  We  answer,  this  is  a 
gross  abuse  of  language.  It  is  not  true,  that  sin  comes  to 
pass.  It  is  true,  that  events  come  to  pass,  in  connection 
with  whi:h  men  commit  sin.  Mr.  Foster  proves,  that  Cal- 
vinists  make  God's  decree  the  necessitating  cause  of  sin, 
by  assuming  what  every  one  ought  to  know  is  untrue,  that 
sin  is  an  event  or  a  thing/  Having  thus  perverted  their 
language,  he  proceeds  to  do  battle  against  a  doctrine 
despised  by  every  enlightened  Calvinist  on  earth." 

Dr.  Rice  commences,  by  stating  that  he  has  already 
proved,  that  "the  Presbyterian  Confession  teaches,  con- 
cerning the  sins  of  angels  and  men,  that  God  decreed, 
or  purposed  to  permit  and  direct.  This  is  all."  To  this 
I  reply,  Dr.  Rice  has  proved  nothing  more  than  was 
stated  and  admitted  in  my  letters — ^nothing  but  what  is 
subversive  of  his  own  creed;  but  he  has  overlooked  the 
real  issue,  and  he  seeks  to  keep  it  from  the  view  of  his 
readers.  It  is  this :  I  have  proved,  by  several  arguments, 
which  the  Doctor  is  too  cunning  to  notice,  that  his  Con- 
fession and  standard  authors  teach,  that  God  has  effi- 
ciently decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass — ^that  he  causes, 
not  permits,  all  things.  To  this  he  makes  no  reply.  He 
well  knows  that  he  has  adopted  an  interpretation  of  his 
system  which  cannot  be  sustained ;  and  for  this  very  reason 
he  will  not  meet  me  here.  Not  a  word  will  he  say  on  this 
subject.  He  knows  that  the  doctrine  of  permission  is  ai? 
abandonment  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  as  taught  by  his 
Church — that  it  is  Arminianism,  and  not  Calvinism.  He 
escapes  the  difficulties  I  bring  against  him  by  deserting  his 
creed! — by  turning  Arminian !  Calvinism  says,  God  de- 
crees whatsoever  comes  to  pass.  Arminianism  says,  God 
permits  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.      Where  is  Dr.  Rice? 


APPENDIX.  279 

To  my  argument,  "God's  decree  is  the  necessity  of 
tilings;  but  sin  is  something;  therefore,  God's  decree  is 
the  necessity,  or  necessitating  cause  of  sin,"  he  replies, 
"  Sin  is  not  a  thing,  hut  a  quality'' 

Again:  to  my  argument,  "God  decreed  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass;  but  sin  comes  to  pass;  therefore,  God 
decreed  sin,"  he  rephes,  that  ''this  is  a  gross  abuse  of 
language.  It  is  not  true,  that  sin  comes  to  pass.  Mr. 
Foster  proves  that  Calvinists  make  God's  decree  the  neces- 
sitating cause  of  sin,  hy  assuming  what  every  one  ought  to 
know  is  untrue,  that  sin  is  an  event  or  a  thing." 

Sin  is  not  a  thing !  Not  an  event !  It  does  not  come  to 
pass!  It  is  a  quality!  Therefore,  though  God  decreed 
all  things  and  events,  with  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  yet 
he  did  not  decree  sin!  A  cardinal's  cap  for  the  learned 
Doctor!  If  sin  is  a  thing,  or  an  event,  or  if  it  comes  to 
pass,  the  Doctor  will  admit  my  argument.  Very  well, 
then.  Is  sin  a  thing?  What  is  a  thing?  Webster  says, 
a  "thing  is  an  event  or  action;  that  which  happens  or  falls 
out ;  that  which  is  done,  told,  or  purposed." 

Now,  what  is  sin?  John  says,  "Sin  is  the  transgression 
of  the  law."  But  is  it  an  act  to  transgress  the  law  ?  Then 
sin  is  an  action.  But  perhaps  John  is  mistaken.  I  have  a 
better  authority  with  Dr.  Rice — the  Confession  of  Faith. 
"Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression 
of  the  righteous  law  of  God,"  etc.  "  Sin  is  any  want  of 
conformity  unto,  or  transgression  of  any  law  of  God." 
But  what  now?  May  be  transgression  is  a  quality! 
Webster  says,  "transgression  is  the  act  of  passing  over 
or  beyond  any  law  or  rule  of  moral  duty;  the  violation 
of  law  or  known  principle  of  rectitude;  breach  of  com- 
mand." So,  between  John  and  Webster,  we  find  that  sin 
is  an  act — an  act  is  a  thing ;  so  sin  is  a  thing ! 

Again:  nothing  is  more  common  than  for  ministers, 
luihorized  by  the  Bible,  to  warn  men  against  committing, 


280  APPENDIX. 

doinr/,  perfonnhig  sins !  Now,  do  they  warn  them  against 
committing  qualities  or  actions? 

Again:  will  Dr.  Rice  inform  us  what  a  qualit}'  is,  sep- 
arate from  a  thing?  or  what  a  thing  is,  separate  from  its 
qualities  ? 

But  sin  is  not  an  event!  What  is  an  event?  "Event," 
says  Webster,  "is  that  which  comes,  arrives,  or  happens; 
that  which  falls  out;  any  incident,  good  or  bad." 

Well,  now,  what  is  sin?  "Sin  is  the  transgression  of 
the  law."  Query:  Did  it  ever  occur  that  the  law  was 
transgressed?  or,  if  Dr.  Rice  prefers  it,  did  it  never  hap- 
pen that  an  act  occurred  embracing  a  sinful  quality  ?  if  so, 
was  this  an  event?  Then  sin  is  an  event!  But,  again, 
either  all  sin  is  eternal,  or  sins  do  come  to  pass  in  time,  or 
there  is  no  sin.  But  Dr.  Rice  says,  sin  does  not  come  to 
pass  in  time;  therefore,  there  is  no  sin,  or  all  sins  are 
eternal.     Which  will  the  Doctor  choose  ? 

But  again:  Dr.  Rice  quotes  the  Confession  of  Faith,  to 
prove  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  believe  that  God  per- 
mitted sin.  What  does  he  mean  by  this  ?  Permitted  sm — 
how?  in  what  sense?  Permitted  it  to  come  to  pass? 
Can  he  mean  any  thing  else  ?  But  he  says,  it  is  an  abuse 
of  language  to  say  sin  came  to  pass !  Will  the  gentleman 
help  us  here? 

He  says,  also,  concerning  sin,  "that  God  decreed  to 
order,  govern,  and  bound  them."  What  does  he  mean  by 
this?  That  God  bounds  and  governs  qualities,  or  events 
and  things — the  acts  of  men  and  angels  ? 

But  I  have  perpetrated  a  great  blunder — am  guilty 
of  a  great  abuse  of  language — in  making  sin  a  thing — 
an  event — in  saying  it  comes  to  pass!  It  is  not  any 
thing!  It  is  not  an  event!  It  never  did  come  to  pass! 
So  says  Dr.  Rice,  and  he  ought  to  know.  Hencefortn 
let  it  be  known,  sin  is  a  quality!  an  abstraction!  It 
is    an    abuse   of   language    to   say,    men   commit   sin,    oi 


APPENDIX.  281 

to  speak  of  it  as  a  thing  that  is  effected  or  brought 
to  pass?  What  men  do,  or  think,  or  purpose,  are  not 
sins — nothing  could  be  Tnore  unscholarly  than  to  say  they 
are. 

But,  now,  if  it  should  seem  to  my  readers,  after  all,  that 
gin  is  something,  and  not  nothing,  my  argument,  by  tacit 
admission  of  Dr.  Rice,  bears  unanswerably  against  his 
system. 

I  could  very  easily  show,  that  all  his  authors,  the  Con- 
fession, and  God  himself,  speak  of  sin  in  the  same  manner 
in  which  I  speak  of  it — as  an  event — an  action ;  of  course, 
the  action  nor  event  are  ever  stripped  of  their  qualities. 
But  really  this  is  too  ridiculous:  it  shows  to  what  an 
extremity  a  man  will  permit  himself  to  be  driven  in  sup- 
port of  a  bad  cause.  I  have  met  with  many  attempts  to 
escape  the  difficulty;  but  this  last,  I  must  admit,  in  justice 
to  my  distinguished  antagonist,  is  the  climacteric.  He 
admits  that  God  decreed  all  acts  and  events,  but  not 
their  quality.  Now,  look  at  this.  He  decreed  every  blas- 
phemy, every  murder,  every  theft,  every  enormity,  with 
every  intention — and  his  decree  necessitated  their  occur- 
rence; but  he  did  not  decree  sin,  and  his  decree  did  not 
necessitate  the  occurrence  of  sin.  Very  well.  Now,  ad- 
mit that  sin  is  a  quality  separate  from  all  these  acts  and 
intentions — the  idea  of  which  is  preposterous- — ^}^et  can  the 
acts  and  intentions  exist  without  the  sins?  Will  Dr.  Rice 
say  they  can?  If  they  cannot,  if  the  thing  is  impossible, 
does  not  the  decree,  which  necessitates  the  act  and  inten- 
tion, necessitate  the  quality  of  sin,  also  ? 

I  this  moment  observe,  that  Dr.  Rice  speaks  of  sin  as 
action  in  this  very  connection,  showing  how  error  causes 
its  advocates  to  blunder  and  fall  in  its  defense.  He  saj^s, 
"It  is  true  that  events  come  to  pass,  in  connection  with 
whif'h  men  commit  sin."  What  does  this  mean.  Doctor? 
Do  men  commit  qualities,  or  acts?  Sin  is  not  an  event — 
24 


282  APPENDIX. 

not  an  act.  When  men  commit  sin,  what  do  they  commit  ^ 
something  or  nothing  ? 

Doctor,  what  do  you  suppose  candid,  thoughtful  men 
must  think  of  a  system  admitting  no  better  defense  than 
you  find  yourself  able  to  make  here?  In  all  candor,  are 
you  not  ashamed  of  such  quibbling  yourself!  Come,  sir, 
come,  put  it  away — discuss  this  subject,  for  once,  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  yourself  and  worthy  of  it. 

But  I  thank  you  for  admitting  that  God  has  decreed  all 
events  and  actions,  in  a  manner  which  necessitates  their 
existence.  This  is  making  some  progress,  and  looks  as 
though  you  were  about  to  give  up  your  subterfuge  of 
permission,  and  come  out  an  up  and  down  Calvinist. 
Stick  to  this,  and  you  will  fare  much  better  than  by  at- 
tempting to  defend  two  contradictory  systems. 

"2.  Mr.  Foster  is  wholly  unable  to  understand,  that 
God  may  direct  certain  acts,  without  being  chargeable 
with  the  sin  men  commit  in  performing  those  acts ;  and  he 
IS  quite  certain,  that  if  the  act  can  be  attributed  to  God, 
the  feeling  or  motive  which  prompts  it,  must  also  be  at- 
tributed to  him.  Strange  that  a  man  should  so  stumble 
and  blunder  concerning  a  principle  perfectly  familiar  to 
every  tliinking  mind.  Joseph's  brethren  hated  him,  and 
determined  to  kill  him;  but  Reuben  persuaded  them  to 
put  him  in  a  pit,  'that  he  might  rid  him  out  of  their 
hands,  and  deliver  him  to  his  father  again.'  (Genesis 
xxxvii,  21,  22.)  Now,  was  not  Reuben  the  author,  in  an 
important  sense,  of  the  act  of  putting  Joseph  into  the 
pit?  But  for  his  influence  that  act  would  not  have  been 
performed.  But  was  he  chargeable  with  the  sin  com- 
mitted by  his  brothers  in  performing  the  act  ?  They  were 
influenced  by  malignant  feelings;  he  by  benevolent  feel-- 
ings.  The  act,  so  far  as  Reuben  was  concerned,  was 
good ;  so  far  as  his  brothers  were  concerned,  it  was  bad. 
They   would   have  killed   him ;    Reuben    persuaded   them 


APPENDIX.  283 

to  do  a  different  thing,  which,  though  it  gratified  their 
revenge,  offered  the  prospect  of  saving  him." 

Here  follows  a  number  of  quotations  from  the  Bible ;  but 
as  they  do  not  bear  on  the  point  in  dispute,  and  as  what  is 
given  is  a  specimen,  we  need  not  insert  them  in  full. 

The  Doctor  here  takes  up  what  he  calls  my  second  diffi- 
culty;  and  he  says  *'it  is  to  understand  how  God  may 
direct  to  certain  acts,  without  being  chargeable  with  the  sin 
men  commit  in  performing  those  acts."  Query:  Why  did 
not  Dr.  Rice  state  my  difficulty  in  my  own  language  ?  Why 
does  he  scrupulously  avoid  giving  my  arguments  in  his 
replies?  Can  any  body  guess?  Does  the  Doctor  know? 
Does  the  Doctor  know  why  he  will  not  examine  my  repHes 
even,  if  he  supposes  himself  able,  triumphantly,  to  defend 
his  cause? 

My  difficulty,  which  the  Doctor  is  here  trying  to  state 
and  remove,  is  this :  not  to  distinguish  between  an  act  and 
its  morality,  but  to  separate  morality  from  an  act  and  its 
intention.  My  language  is  this:  "There  is  a  discrimination 
between  the  sinful  act  and  the  sin  of  the  act.  This  is  cor- 
rect. An  act  and  its  sinfulness  are  certainly  distinct.  (Act 
is  here  spoken  of  as  free  from  the  intention.)  Sin  resides 
in  the  intention,  not  the  act.  Well,  then,  is  this  the  mean- 
ing of  our  Calvinistic  brethren,  that,  though  God's  decree 
is  the  efficient  cause  of  the  sinful  act,  as  an  act,  it  is  not  the 
cause  of  its  sin ;  for  the  sin  is  in  the  sinner's  intention  in 
committing  it?  But,  then,  a  question  arises  right  here: 
Was  not  the  sinner's  intention  decreed  ?  If  you  answer  me 
no,  then  there  is  something  which  comes  to  pass  which  was 
not  decreed.  If  you  answer  yes,  and  the  sin  Avas  in  the 
intention,  then  God,  who  was  the  author  of  the  intention, 
was  author  of  the  sin." 

Now,  Dr.  Rice  must  know  that  the  point  I  make  here  is 
(his:  that  God  has  decreed  all  acts,  with  the  intentions 
that  produced  these  acts,  and,  hence,  that  he  decreed  sin, 


284  APPENDIX. 

bccaivse  the  act  and  the  intention  do  constitute  the  sin — the 
sinful  quahty  must  necessarily  belong  to  them — they  aie 
the  sin  itself. 

It  K  ould  be  a  useless  task  to  take  up  the  cases  he  intro- 
duces to  assist  him,  because  they  do  not  touch  the  point  in 
dispute  between  us ;  but  to  show  you  how  superficial  th.^.y 
are,  we  will  take  up  the  first.  To  show  that  an  act  may  be 
bad  or  good,  in  itself  considered — a  thing  not  disputed— 
and,  hence,  to  decree  an  act  is  not  to  decree  its  quality,  he 
takes  up  the  case  of  Joseph's  brethren.  He  says,  "Now, 
w^as  not  Reuben  the  author,  in  an  important  sense,  of  the 
act  of  putting  Joseph  into  the  pit  ?  But  was  he  chargeable 
with  the  sins  committed  [that  is,  qualities  committed]  by 
his  brothers  in  performing  the  act?  They  were  influenced 
by  malignant  feelings ;  he,  by  benevolent  feelings.  The  act, 
so  far  as  Reuben  was  concerned,  was  good;  but,  so  far 
as  his  brothers  were  concerned,  it  was  bad."  Now,  with 
this  statement  of  the  Doctor  I  agree  perfectly.  But,  now, 
mark.  Why  was  the  act  good  in  Reuben?  Because  his 
intention  was  good.  Why  was  the  act  had — acts,  you  see, 
are  sins — in  his  brothers?  Because  their  intention  was  bad. 
But  whence  came  that  intention  ?  Dr.  Rice  says  God  de- 
creed it,  in  a  manner  to  necessitate  its  existence.  If  God's 
decree  was  the  cause  of  the  intention,  and  sin  was  in  the 
intention,  who  caused  the  sin?  Doctor,  will  you  tell  us? 
Every  other  case  admits  of  the  same  easy  answer,  in  a  word. 

"  The  Scriptures  abound  in  such  facts — facts  which  Mr. 
Foster,  soaring  aloft  in  the  airy  regions  of  abstract  logic, 
did  not  think  worth  while  to  notice.  His  arguments  are 
not  against  Calvinism — they  are  against  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible.  In  his  zeal  to  pull  down  Calvinism,  he  has  struck 
at  the  foundations  of  Christianity.  In  his  anxiety  to  furnish 
his  Methodist  brethren  with  arguments,  he  has  furnished 
the  infidel  with  arguments  no  less  conclusive.  If  we  were 
an  mfidel,  we  could  desire  no  better  arguments  against  the 


APPENDIX,  285 

truth  of  the  Bible  than  those  of  Mr.  Foster,  if  they  are 
at  all  sound.  With  those  arguments  we  would  prove,  not 
that  Calvinism  destroys  man's  free  agency  and  account- 
ability, and  makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  but  that  the  Biblo 
is  liable  to  these  charges !" 

The  Doctor  does  not  like  my  logic.  I  do  not  wonder  at 
this.  It  is  very  natural  he  should  not.  But  I  am  at  some 
loss  to  know  how  the  truths  of  logic  and  the  truths  of 
Scripture  conflict  w*ith  each  other.  Perhaps  the  Doctor 
will  enlighten  us  here.  And  as  for  Scripture  facts,  I  am 
prepared  to  examine  any  that  shall  be  submitted  upon  the 
real  points  at  issue;  and  I  further  boldly  deny,  that  Dr. 
Rice  can  find  any  passage  of  Scripture  sustaining  what  I 
object  to.  I  defy  the  gentleman  to  produce  it.  Let  him 
do  so,  before  he  accuses  me  of  using  logic  in  opposition  to 
the  Bible.  He  says,  "My  arguments  are  not  against  Cal- 
vinism— they  are  against  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  In 
his  zeal  to  pull  down  Calvinism,  he  has  stnick  at  the 
foundations  of  Christianity."  I  suppose  the  Doctor  means 
Calvinism  is  Christianity!  I  cannot  perceive  how  other- 
wise his  strange  charge  is  to  be  understood.  But  what  a 
posture  is  this  for  Dr.  Rice,  the  champion  of  Calvinism! 
How  are  the  mighty  fallen !  He  finds  he  cannot  answer 
my  logic,  and,  hence,  deprecates  its  use.  My  arguments 
are  unanswerable  ;  and  he  cries  the  ark  is  in  danger — "  to 
your  tents,  0  Israel!"  .  He  says,  "With  those  arguments 
we  would  prove,  not  that  Calvinism  destroys  man's  free 
agency  and  accountability,  and  makes  God  the  author  of 
sin,  but  that  the  Bible  is  liable  to  these  charges."  Docs 
the  gentleman  mean  that  the  Bible  is  hable  to  these  charges  ? 
If  so,  of  course  he  believes  them ;  for  he  believes  the  Bible. 
If  not,  of  course  he  does  not  believe  the  arguments  suffi- 
cient to  convict  the  Bible;  and  why,  then,  would  he  use 
them  against  it?  But  who,  besides  Dr.  Rice,  has  ever 
imagined  that  my  letters  assailed  the  Bible? 


286  APPENDIX. 

"Mr.  Foster  seems  wholly  unable  to  comprehend,  what 
i3  perfectly  plain,  that  the  same  moral  feeling  may  lead  to 
the  commission  of  any  one  of  fifty  acts.  And  hence  he 
argues,  ihat  if  God  decreed  to  bring  to  pass  a  certain  event, 
he  must  have  decreed  to  produce  in  the  heart  the  moral 
feeling  by  which  that  event  is  brought  to  pass.  A  man 
Jiates  another.  Under  the  influence  of  that  hatred  he  may 
slander  him ;  he  may  injure  his  property;  he  may  institute 
vexatious  civil  suits;  he  may  insult  him;  he  may  striki 
him.  A  man  is  ambitious;  and  his  ambition  may  be  grati- 
fied in  many  ways.  To  what  particular  acts  it  may  lead 
him,  will  depend  entirely  upon  the  circumstances  in  which 
he  may  be  placed.  A  man  is  covetous.  His  covetousness 
makes  him  desire  to  accumulate  money  and  property;  but 
there  are  many  ways  in  which  this  may  be  done.  What 
particular  acts  his  love  of  money  may  lead  him  to  perform, 
depends  upon  what  moral  principle  he  has,  and  by  what 
circumstances  he  may  be  surrounded.  Now,  all  that  Cal- 
vinists  hold  on  this  subject,  is  simply,  that  God  decreed  to 
permit  the  fall  and  sinfulness  of  men,  and  that  he  decreed 
so  to  control  their  sinful  dispositions,  as  to  bring  to  pass  his 
wise  and  holy  ends.  That  he  did  permit  the  fall  and  the 
depravity  of  men,  Mr.  Foster  will  not  deny.  That  he  exer- 
cises a  controlling  providence  over  the  wicked,  the  Bible 
most  abundantly  teaches. 

"The  enlightened  Calvinist  has  no  insuperable  difficulty 
in  finding  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  these  things.  God 
purposed  to  permit  the  temptation  and  the  fall  of  our  first 
parents.  In  consequence  of  that  event  all  their  posterity 
are  sinful.  God,  withdrawing  from  them  his  divine  influ- 
ence, permits  them  to  be  so ;  but  he  does  not  allow  them 
to  wander  abroad  uncontrolled.  In  its  native  freedom,  *  the 
heart  of  a  man  deviscth  his  w^ay ;'  but  in  his  divine  sover- 
eignty *  the  Lord  directeth  his  steps.'  " 

This  paragraph  is,  if  possible,  still  more  remarkable  than 


APPENDIX.  287 

either  of  the  former.  I  have  read  from  Dr.  Rice's  pen  for 
some  years;  but  the  inaccuracies  of  this  letter  are  more 
unaccountable  than  in  any  of  his  former  writing  that  has 
come  under  my  observation.  I  attribute  this  to  the  badness 
of  his  cause,  and  his  evident  confusion.  He  says,  "Mr. 
Foster  seems  wholly  unable  to  comprehend,  what  is  per- 
fectly plain,  that  the  same  moral  feelings  may  lead  to  the 
commission  of  any  one  of  fifty  acts."  Where  did  you  learn 
this,  Doctor?  I  assure  you  it  is  news  to  me.  I  have  many 
difficulties,  upon  some  of  which  I  have  asked  your  assist- 
ance; but  this  I  never  dreamed  of  in  my  life.  "And 
hence,"  he  says,  "he  argues,  that  if  God  decreed  to  bring 
to  pass  a  certain  event,  he  must  have  decreed  to  produce 
in  the  heart  the  moral  feeling  by  which  that  event  is 
brought  to  pass.  A  man  hates  another.  Under  the  influ- 
ence of  that  hatred  he  may  slander;  he  may  injure  his 
property;  he  may  institute  vexatious  civil  suits,"  etc.  I 
suppose  the  Doctor  means  that  I  argue,  that  if  God  decreed 
the  event  or  act,  he  decreed  the  sin.  If  this  is  his  meaning, 
I  answer  yes.  For  if  God  decreed  all  things  whatsoever 
come  to  pass,  he  decreed  the  act  and  the  intention,  and  the 
state  of  heart  that  produced  them;  for  these  all  come  to 
pass.  If  he  decreed  that  a  man  should  slander  another,  or 
kill,  or  any  otherwise  injure,  and  if  these  things  proceed 
from  intention,  and  this  intention  springs  from  hatred,  and 
all  these  come  to  pass,  he  decreed  them  all ;  for  he  decreed 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass. 

The  Doctor  does  not  seem  to  remember,  that  though  a 
great  diversity  of  bad  acts  can  flow  from  one  bad  feeling, 
yet  not  one  of  them  can  flow,  as  a  bad  act,  without  the 
feeling. 

He  says,  "The  enlightened  Calvinist  has  no  insuperable 
difficulty  in  finding  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  these  things. 
God  purposed  to  permit  the  temptation  and  fall  of  our  first 
parents."     Is  permitting  it  decreeing  it.   Doctor?      I   ai^k 


288  APPENDIX. 

you  this  short  question.     You  will  never  answer  it!     You 
cannot !     Its  answer  is  fatal  to  Calvinism. 

*'  Such  arguments  are  proper  weapons  of  infidelity ;  they 
bok  exceeding  badly  in  a  Christian  minister.  Let  hinc 
come  down  from  his  airy  logic,  and  grapple  with  Bible 
facts,  and  we  will  hear  him  patiently."  When  Dr.  Rice 
shows  that  my  logic  is  bad,  it  will  then  be  time  to  attend 
to  Bible  facts.  First  let  us  know  what  the  system  is ;  then 
inquire  whether  it  is  found  in  the  Bible.  I  am  ready,  how- 
ever, at  any  time,  to  hear  Dr.  Rice  prove  Calvinism  from 
the  Bible.  Will  he  ever  do  it  ?  I  have  no  fear  that  any 
of  our  readers  will  suppose  that  I  have  less  reverence  for 
that  book  than  my  friend  has.  I  am  ready  to  show  that 
the  Scriptures  sustain  against  his  system  all  the  objections 
I  have  laid.  If  the  system  is  logically  liable,  it  cannot 
escape.  This  is  the  first  question.  In  conclusion,  I  repeat 
that  I  am  now  noticing  Dr.  Rice's  seventh  letter,  diiect  and 
indirect,  and  as  yet  he  wavers  as  to  the  mode  and  point  of 
attack.     Will  he  ever  come  up  to  it? 

NUMBER    v. 

Dr.  Rice  notices  me  in  two  columns  of  his  last  issue.  He 
reiterates  the  charges  of  slander,  and  misrepresentation, 
but,  as  usual,  without  bringing  a  solitary  proof  to  sustain 
it,  or  attempting  to  refute  or  correct  a  single  statement  I 
have  made.  But  my  readers  will  remember  that  I  have 
not  made  a  single  charge  against  him  which  I  have  not 
sustained  by  numerous  arguments  and  authorities.  Why 
does  not  the  gentleman  attend  to  these  ? 

It  is  a  plain  case.  Do  I  sustain  my  charges  against  him  ? 
If  I  do,  he  is  not  slandered.  If  I  do  not,  cannot  Dr.  Rice, 
the  acute  polemic,  expose  the  fallacy?  I  regret  to  see 
ebullitions  of  feeling  upon  the  part  of  the  gentleman ;  but 
1  can  only  remind  him  of  former  times,  when  he  was  in  a 
better  humor  with  himself — he  may  find  comfort  in  the 
reference.     His  appeal  to  Presbyterian  ministers  is  amusing. 


APPENDIX.  289 

vVLat,  sir,  have  we  not  your  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the 
'vorks  of  your  great  men,  hving  and  dead  ?  Are  not  these 
tlie  exponents  of  your  creed  ?  The  question  between  us, 
and  at  the  bar  of  the  pubhc,  is  simply  this:  Have  I  cor- 
rectly stated  these  authorities?  What  are  the  logical  con- 
sequences flowing  from  them?  This  is  a  question  easily 
settled.  That  you  would  be  glad  to  have  a  jury  of  Presly- 
terian  preachers  to  settle  the  matter  between  us,  I  have  no 
doubt.  /  have  great  respect  for  these  brethren,  hut  will 
txcuse  them,  on  the  same  principle  that  relatives  are  excused 
in  important  civil  suits.  But  I  must  protest  that  I  neither 
think  them  vile  nor  unlearned,  but  believe  them  generally  a 
pious  and  worthy  class  of  men.  I  further  believe  that,  if 
they  were  the  court,  they  would  admit  that  I  have  correctly 
stated  their  system.  But  they  will  disclaim  the  conse- 
quences I  deduce.  But  the  point  is  not  to  disclaim,  but  to 
disprove-  This,  sir,  troublesome  as  it  is — and  I  know  it 
exceedingly  vexes  you — is  what  you  must  do. 

He  repeats  in  this  number  the  learned  argument  (!)  about 
sin  not  being  a  thing  or  event.  What  has  been  said  above 
will  satisfy  the  gentleman  on  this  subject;  but  I  predict  he 
will  never  show  it  to  his  readers. 

He  next  gives  a  long  list  of  quotations  from  Calvin,  dis- 
claiming the  consequences  charged  against  him.  But  are 
disclaimers  arguments?  Suppose  a  volume  of  such  quota- 
tions were  given — a  thing  I  could  easily  do  myself,  and  so  I 
notified  my  readers  at  first — what  avail  would  it  be  ?  If 
Calviif,  and  all  Calvinistic  authors,  teach  contradictory  doc- 
trines, or  embrace  premises,  but  deny  the  logical  consequences, 
are  they,  for  this  reason,  to  stand  acquit,  and  those  who 
show  the  consequences  to  be  accounted  slanderers  ?  Such 
letters  as  Dr.  Rice's  may  satisfy  his  people — this  is  their 
object.  He  may  persuade  them  that  somebody  is  greatly 
traducing  their  faith ;  but  what  will  all  candid  men  think 
of  such  defense  by  such  a  man  ?     What  a  strange  reluctance 

25 


290  APPENDIX, 

Dr.  Rice  has  to  make  a  definite  issue  on  any  point  or  argu- 
ment !  Why  is  this  ?  He  accuses  me  of  slander — he  deals 
in  generals — he  stands  aloof  from  all  issues.  Piesbyterians, 
what  do  you  think  of  such  defense?  Many  of  you  will 
think  for  yourselves.  Will  you  be  content  witn  this  ?  Is 
this  the  strength  of  your  champion  ?  Here  I  distinctly 
challenge  Br.  Mice:  he  accuses  me  of  misrepresentation;  I 
challenge  him  to  specify  in  what  particular.  I  have  stated 
fiis  system,  and  then  I  have  deduced  logical  consequences.  I 
defy  the  gentleman  to  make  good  his  charge  of  misrepreseiito 
tion.  Now  let  him  do  it — let  him  specify.  Eight  replies, 
direct  and  indirect,  and  no  issue  yet !  What  must  be  the 
confusion  and  trouble  of  Dr.  Hice  when  such  is  the  case ! 
What  must  the  strength  of  the  argument  be  which  keeps 
him  thus  in  abeyance ! 

NUMBER  VI. 

The  course  of  Dr.  Rice,  with  respect  to  my  letters,  thus 
far,  has,  at  least,  afforded  some  amusement  to  many  ob- 
servers. The  amusement  may,  indeed,  in  many  instances, 
have  amounted  to  innocent  merriment.  His  confusion  and 
flounderings — his  bold  and  resolute  assaults  and  rapid  re- 
treats— his  fruitless  effort  to  escape,  or  cover  up  the  points 
in  debate — his  boastings,  and  pious  horrors,  and  suppliant 
entreaties — his  evident  bad  spirits,  with  his  endeavor  to 
seem  in  good  heart — all  taken  together,  combined  with  the 
recollection  of  the  man  who  enacts  the  scene,  constitute  an 
exhibition  provoking,  at  the  same  time,  an  involuntary  smile 
and  a  sense  of  pity. 

First  he  ridicules ;  then  he  becomes  demure  and  morose ; 
then  he  commences  a  stately  defense,  in  articles  regularly 
numbered;  then  he  stops  still;  then  he  turns  round,  and 
riommences  anew  at  No.  1  again ;  then  he  denies  and  dis- 
claims; then  he  attacks:  thus  he  runs  through  eleven 
'etters,  without  making  a  single  intelligible  issue  with  a 
single  proposition  I  have  made.     His  best  performances  I 


APPENDIX.  291 

have  quoted  fully  to  my  readers,  and  they  can  judge  about 
the  correctness  of  this  representation.  Verily,  Calvinism 
has  found  but  a  feeble  defense  in  this  instance.  But  it  is 
not  Dr.  Rice's  fault — he  wants  neither  the  will  nor  the  abil- 
ity to  defend  it  to  the  utmost  it  will  admit  of — it  is  the 
fault  of  the  system.  He  has  done  nobly.  What  more 
could  he  have  done?  Has  he  not  cried  "misrepresen- 
tation?" Has  he  not  refused  to  meet  all  the  issues?  Has 
he  not  faithfully  kept  all  my  charges  from  his  people  ?  Has 
he  not  done  his  best  to  divert  attention?  Has  he  not 
praised  the  system,  and  told  his  readers  what  could  be 
done,  and  what  has  been  done  a  thousand  times  ?  Has  he 
not  quoted  sentiments,  from  his  authors,  precisely  contra- 
dictory to  the  sentunents  I  quoted  from  the  same  authors  ? 
Has  he  not  declaimed  against  logic  as  a  weapon  of  infi- 
delity ?  Nay,  more :  has  he  not  assumed  to  be  an  outright 
Arminian?  What  more  could  the  gentleman  have  done? 
I  say  again,  if  it  all  fails,  it  is  not  his  fault.  He  has  strug- 
gled nobly,  and  with  his  accustomed  tact.  The  system 
alone  is  to  blame.  I  hope  Presbyterians  will  understand 
tliis.  Let  not  your  wrath  come  down  upon  the  Doctor. 
He  has  done  all  that  mortal  could  do,  and  you  should  do 
your  utmost  to  comfort  him.  Make  the  best  of  a  bad 
cause. 

In  his  last,  with  admirable  precision,  he  runs  the  same 
old  round  of  his  former  nine.  First,  he  enters  a  denial  of 
my  charges,  and  declares  me  a  false  accuser;  but  not  a 
word,  not  an  allusion,  to  my  arguments  or  authorities !  A 
conclusive  mode  of  reasoning,  as  you  all  know!  It  tears 
arguments  and  authorities  right  up  by  the  roots!  It  is 
good  old  Calvinistic,  Geneva  logic!  Then  he  quotes  dis- 
claimers from  the  authorities  employed  by  us !  An  admi- 
rable method  of  meeting  logical  consequences!  Nothing 
could  be  more  to  the  point  than  this!  "A  man,"  says 
John  Smith,  "is  a  murderer;  and  whoever  murders  deserves 


202  APPENDIX. 

to  be  hanged."  A  listener  says,  "Then  John  Sm»th  de- 
serves to  be  hanged."  The  former  speaker  becomes  en- 
n.ged ;  says  he  is  misrepresented — he  never  said  John 
Smith  deserved  the  fate  of  hanging!  It's  logic!  He  is 
not  accountable  for  logic!  It  is  an  infidel  weapon!  He 
does  not  believe  what  is  charged  against  him!  He  does 
not  believe,  more  than  his  accuser,  that  John  Smith  ought 
to  be  hanged!  Of  course,  the  disclaimer  annihilates  the 
logic!  Nobody  will  presume  to  doubt  it!  Nobody  will 
believe  that  he  said  or  thought  that  John  Smith  ought  to 
be  hanged ! 

The  Doctor  follows  his  declamation  with  this  fatal  ad- 
mission :  "  We  denounce  that  doctrine  [the  doctrine  I 
charged  upon  Calvinists]  as  unequivocally  as  he  does ;  and 
we  readily  admit  that  he  has  proved  it  perfectly  absurd  and 
blasphemous."  Thus,  it  will  be  perceived,  the  cogency  and 
correctness  of  my  arguments  is  admitted.  The  doctrines  I 
antagonize,  it  is  confessed,  are  shown  to  be  perfectly  absurd 
and  blasphemous/  This  is  Dr.  Rice's  judgment.  Well,  now, 
my  readers  know  perfectly  well,  that  these  very  doctrines 
are  quoted  alo7ie  and  only  from  the  Confession  of  Faitli, 
and  such  authors  as  Calvin,  Edwards,  Buck,  Witsius,  Dick, 
etc.  Are  these  Calvinistic  authorities,  or  not?  If  so,  the 
doctrines  proved  to  be  perfectly  absurd  and  blasp)hemous, 
Dr.  Rice  himself  being  judge,  are  Calvinistic;  and  so 
Calvinism,  in  the  judgment  of  its  champion,  is  absurd  and 
blasphemous!     What  worse   than  this  have  I  said  of  it? 

He  next  introduces,  as  wont,  the  doctrine  of  permission, 
but,  of' course,  without  alluding  to  the  fact  that  I  have  tri- 
umphantly exposed  the  fallacy.  He  has  no  idea  of  letting 
his  readers  know  what  weakness  marks  his  defense — what 
contradictions  he  is  involved  in.  He  knows  too  much,  as 
an  old  and  practiced  polemic,  to  quote  arguments  which  he 
cannot  answer,  or  to  admit  replies  which  uncover  his  naked- 
ness.    He  never  will  do  this. 


APPENDIX.  203 

The  learned  Doctor,  having  thus  lucidly,  and  creditahU 
to  himself,  defended  his  own  system,  proceeds,  in  answer  to 
the  inquiry,  "  Are  our  Methodist  brethren  free  from  diffi- 
culty upon  this  subject?"  to  make  quotations  from  Wesley 
and  Watson,  which,  Ave  infer,  he  supposes  involve  us  in 
similar  difficulties  to  those  besetting  his  own  system,  which 
he  admits  is  shown  to  be  absurd  and  blasphemous ;  but  I 
confess  I  have  not  discernment  enough  to  perceive  the  diffi- 
culty. I  find  nothing  objectional  in  the  quotations.  I  find 
no  logical  consequences  that  give  me  a  moment's  uneasiness. 
When  the  gentleman  names  consequences,  or  premises, 
which  he  deems  objectional,  we  may  help  him.  He  prom- 
ises to  do  this.  In  the  meantime,  will  he  attend  to  the 
matters  in  hand  ?  Will  he  reheve  his  own  system  ?  Come, 
Doctor,  keep  in  good  heart.  You  have  a  troublous  task,  it 
is  true ;  but  keep  up  your  spirits — don't  get  out  of  humor — 
do  the  best  you  can,  and,  for  your  encouragement,  always 
remember,  nobody  will  censure  you  in  the  event  of  failure 
and  defeat.  Your  abilities  are  admitted,  and  it  will  be  set 
down  to  the  fact  that  you  have  a  bad  cause. 

NUMBER  VII. 

This  letter,  as  the  former,  starts  out  with  the  stereotyped 
charge  of  misrepresentation.  The  point  here  named  is  this : 
he  says  that  I  attach  to  the  word  necessity  the  idea  of  com- 
pulsion; although  Calvinistic  writers  have  been  careful  to 
say  that  they  use  it  in  no  such  sense — that  by  the  word 
necessity  they  mean  only  certainty.  To  this  statement  I 
reply,  1.  It  is  not  correct  in  point  of  fact.  Calvinists  do 
not  attach  the  simple  idea  of  certainty  to  necessity — and 
here  I  will  join  particular  issue  with  Dr.  Rice  whenever  he 
chooses — ^but  they  do  attach  to  their  use  of  the  term 
necessity  the  idea  of  an  inevitable  effect  following  a  pre- 
ceding cause.  2.  I  deny  that  Calvinists,  as  a  class,  have 
been  careful  to  state  that  they  use  it  in  no  such  sense. 
3.  I  assert,  they  cannot,  in  consistency  with  their  system. 


204  APPENDIX. 

employ  it  simply  in  this  sense.    Dr.  Rice  cannot  sustain  his 
issue.     Let  him  try  it. 

He  next  proceeds  to  discuss  the  doctrine  of  election.  Ho 
makes  his  statement  of  the  doctrine ;  and,  though  there  is 
an  evident  effort  to  obscure  or  vail  its  fiercer  features,  he 
admits  all  that  we  could  desire,  to  warrant  our  statement 
of  this  point,  deduced  from  other  and  more  distinguished 
authors.  He  says,  *'What  is  the  doctrine  of  election?  1. 
Not  that  God,  from  eternity,  determined  to  save  any  of  the 
human  race  in  their  sins,  but  that  he  determined  to  work  in 
a  great  number  to  will  and  to  do — to  call  them,  by  his  word 
and  Spirit,  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light — to 
sanctify  and  to  save  them.  2.  Not  that  he  determined  to 
prevent  others  from  repenting  and  believing  in  Christ,  but 
simply  to  pass  them  by,  leaving  them  to  their  own  free  choice. 
3.  Not  that  he  determined  to  punish  any,  without  regard 
to  their  moral  character,  but  only  for  their  sins.  4.  Not 
that  God  has  not  the  best  reasons  for  choosing  some  to 
life,  and  passing  by  others,  but  that  the  reasons  are  not 
found  in  the  foreseen  goodness  of  the  formei',  and  are  not 
revealed  to  us.  5.  Not  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  -is 
not,  in  its  nature,  sufficient  for  all,  or  is  not  offered  to  all 
Avho  hear  the  Gospel,  but  that  he  particularly  desig^icd  by 
it  to  redeem  to  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works''  Every  one  will  admire  the  prudence  and  precau- 
tion, not  to  say  timidity,  with  which  the  Doctor  has  selected 
his  ground.  But,  in  despite  of  all  his  pains  to  cover  it  up 
with  a  lamb's  skin,  or  invest  it  in  a  dove's  feathers,  the 
claws  and  teeth  of  the  monster  will  appear.  He  does  nobly 
to  keep  them  out  of  view ;  but  it  is  of  no  avail.  After  all, 
it  is  the  same  old  monster,  which  the  honest  Calvin  ex- 
hibited without  a  covering,  labeled  election  and  reprobation, 
which  he  admitted  himself  was  most  horrible.  Election, 
Dr.  Rice  says,  "is  the  determination,  from  eternity,  to  work 
in  a  great  number  to  will  and  to  do — to  sanctify  and  save 


APPENDIX.  295 

them."  Of  course,  their  salvation  is  inevitable,  or  the  de- 
termination of  God  must  fail.  All  the  consequences  charged 
m  my  letters  follow.  But,  again :  election  is  the  determina- 
tion, from  eternity,  ''to pass  by"  those  not  elected,  "leaving 
them  to  their  own  choice."  Of  course,  if  they  were  passed 
by,  they  could  not  be  saved;  and,  if  they  could  not  be 
saved,  they  must  necessarily  and  inevitably  be  damned; 
and  so,  again,  all  the  consequences  charged  in  my  letters 
follow.  If  they  are  punished  simply  for  their  sins,  they 
are  punished  for  what  was  inevitable  to  them;  because, 
being  passed  by,  they  could  not  avoid  sinning.  So  the 
Doctor,  notwithstanding  all  his  effort  to  soften  down  the 
asperities  of  the  doctrine,  beheves  outright  in  eternal  elec- 
tion and  reprobation ;  that  is,  that  a  certain  definite  number 
of  the  human  race  were  elected,  by  a  determination  which 
cannot  fail,  to  be  saved — ^that  another  definite  number  were 
reprobated  to  be  damned,  being  so  passed  by,  that  they 
could  not,  by  any  possibility,  avoid  damnation.  The  gen- 
tleman has  committed  himself  here ;  and  now,  how  perfectly 
ridiculous  his  former  disclaimers,  when,  by  his  own  state- 
ment, he  is  involved  in  the  very  worst  consequences  charged 
upon  him!  But,  again:  election  "is  not  that  the  atonement 
is  not  sufficient  for  all,  but  that  he  particularly  designed  by 
it  to  redeem  to  himself  a  peculiar  people."  Here,  again, 
in  defiance  of  an  effort  to  keep  in  the  dark  his  beloved  tenet 
of  Umited  atonement,  it  will  exhibit  its  deformities.  The 
atonement,  though  sufficient  in  itself  for  all,  was  not  made 
or  designed  for  any  but  the  peculiar  people — the  elect;  for 
the  residue  it  was  not  an  atonement,  though  sufficient  to  be 
Df  unlimited  efficacy — ^it  was  not  hmited  in  its  sufficiency, 
Dut  in  the  will  of  God.  All  the  consequences  charged  in 
my  letters  follow.  Those  for  whom  it  was  not  designed 
cannot  enjoy  it — they  are  under  an  eternal  necessity  to  be 
damned.  The  gentleman  never  will  state  my  objections  on 
this  point,  and  attempt  to  remove  them.    His  policy  will  be 


296  APPENDIX. 

to  Strike  at  tliem  in  a  general  manner,  without  letting  his 
readers  know  what  they  are,  and  close  by  telling  them  that 
he  has  entirely  met  them. 

Let  the  reader  now  remember,  that  Dr.  Rice  is  convicted 
upon  his  own  statement — and  I  defy  the  gentleman  to 
escape — of  beheving  and  teaching,  that,  by  a  determination 
of  God,  from  eternity,  a  certain  number  of  men  were  as- 
signed to  eternal  life,  and  a  certain  other  number  to  eternal 
death,  in  a  way  that  the  event  must  answer  the  determina- 
tion :  then  let  him  refer  to  the  many  objections  urged  in  our 
letters  against  him,  and  it  will  be  seen  how  dreadful  is  his 
system,  and  how  hopelessly  he  is  involved  in  contradictions, 
or,  as  he  has  unwittingly  admitted,  on  another  point,  in  ah- 
surdity  and  hlasphemy. 

He  proceeds,  having  stated  the  doctrine  of  election,  as 
given  above,  to  inquire  how  far  Methodists  and  Calvinists 
are  agreed  upon  the  subject.  Upon  this  point  I  find  no  oc- 
casion to  make  any  remarks.  If  they  agreed  exactly,  it 
would  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  relieve  his  system.  But 
though  the  statement  he  makes  is,  to  some  extent,  inaccu- 
rate, it  is  so  innocent  it  needs  no  correction.  If  he  wishes 
to  involve  Methodism  in  the  dilemmas  which  encompass 
himself,  he  must  strike  more  severely  than  this.  We  have 
not  been  able  yet  even  to  feel  the  thrust.  When  he  pre- 
monished  us  several  times  of  the  "bottled  thunder  "he  had 
in  reservation  for  us,  we  began  to  think,  may-be,  he  had 
discovered  some  crevice,  or  seam,  where  he  would  make 
deadly  onset ;  but,  when  the  threatened  storm  bursts,  it  is 
but  the  cooing  of  the  dove!  We  find  no  alarm!  Twist 
your  cords  again.  Doctor,  and  lay  on  harder,  or  vre  shall 
not  realize  that  the  attack  has  commenced. 

Having  run  the  parallel,  he  next  proceeds  to  take  up  the 
objections  urged  in  my  letters.  For  once,  he  seems  really 
as  though  he  were  going  to  work  like  a  man.  He  com- 
mences at  objection  first;  and  you  would  imagine  that  now 


APPENDIX.  *  297 

comes  the  tug  of  war;  but,  lo!  without  delaying  for  a 
moment  to  make  battle,  he  says,  "This  objection  is  based 
upon  the  false  view  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees,"  and,  with 
this  masterly  blow,  flies  from  it  as  from  the  face  of  pesti- 
lence. Wliat  a  Hercules!  How  masterly  this  mode  of 
argumentation ! 

He  then  takes  up  objection  second ;  but  here,  as  he  can- 
not but  perceive,  the  point  of  the  argument  is  misstated. 
Our  point  is  this:  that  persons  are  elected  to  salvation, 
and  decreed  to  damnation,  irrespective  of  any  conditions; 
so  that,  as  an  unavoidable  consequence,  the  event  of  their 
salvation  or  damnation  is  in  no  sense  under  their  control, 
but  is  inevitably  fixed,  independently  of  them.  They  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it,  as  it  was  all  fixed  before 
they  had  an  existence,  and  for  causes  independent  of  them. 
Let  the  gentleman  meet  this  point,  and  he  will  meet  one 
point  of  difficulty.  Will  he  grapple  this  objection  ?  If  he 
admits  the  point  I  make,  he  admits  that  neither  sin  nor 
holiness  were  taken  into  the  account,  in  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion and  reprobation,  unless  sin  and  hohness  are  inevitable 
to  the  subjects  of  them.  If  he  denies  the  point,  he,  by- 
necessary  consequence,  admits  that  the  decree  proceeded 
upon  foresight,  and  in  consequence  of  some  voluntary  act 
of  the  creature.  The  former  involves  him  in  all  that  I 
charged  in  my  letters — the  latter  is  a  desertion  of  Cal- 
vinism. He  says,  "All  that  our  Confession  teaches  upon 
the  subject  is,  that  God  chose  to  pass  thein  by,  and  punish 
them  for  their  sins."  This  is  all  we  ask  to  justify  all  the 
objections  we  have  urged — this  is  unconditional  reproba- 
tion enough  for  us;  and  the  gentleman  will  struggle  till 
doomsday  to  escape,  and  struggle  in  vain.  Hear  his  feeble 
attempt  to  sustain  this  position.  I  give  it  because  it  re- 
sembles the  forms  of  an  argument,  and  looks  as  if  he  had 
not  forgotten  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  reasoning. 

"Now,  was  it  unjust  to  pass  them  by,  and  not  renew 


298  »  APPENDIX. 

their  hearts?  If  so,  God  is  bound  to  offer  salvation  to 
men,  and  to  exert  upon  them  divine  influence  to  induce 
them  to  accept  it;  and  then  the  whole  plan  is  simply  a 
matter  of  justice,  and  not  of  grace  toward  men.  If  not, 
who  has  the  right  to  object  to  it  as  unjust?"  This  is  a 
refreshing  specimen,  I  say>  because  it  looks  as  though  the 
gentleman  had  some  respect  to  rules  of  reasoning.  But, 
upon  examination,  it  will  appear  that  his  logic  is  about 
as  objectionable  as  his  theology.  In  the  first  place,  the 
premise  does  not  contain  the  issue.  It  is  not  pretended 
in  our  letters  that  it  is  unjust  "to  pass  them  by>  and  not 
renew  their  hearts;''  but  this  is  the  point  where  injustice  is 
charged — the  jMSsinff  men  hy,  and  leaving  them  ifi  a  state  in 
which  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  have  their  hearts  renewed, 
and  then  damning  them  for  not  performing  the  impossibility. 
This  correction  of  the  premises  being  made,  the  "if  so/' 
and  "if  not,"  of  course,  are  not  legitimate,  ^nd  the  at- 
tempted argument  falls  to  the  ground.  The  plan  of  sal- 
vation is  not  a  scheme  of  mere  justice,  and  such  a  conse- 
quence cannot  be  shown  to  result  from  the  premises ;  but  if 
it  is  not  a  plan  of  mere  justice,  so  neither  is  it  contrary  to 
justice — it  is  a  scheme  of  mercy  in  harmony  with  justice. 
The  plan  of  Calvinists,  as  is  abundantly  shown,  is  neither 
a  plan  of  justice  nor  mercy,  but  is  alike  cruel  and  unjust. 
Take  another  specimen  of  logic.  I  do  not  wonder  that  the 
gentleman  is  on  bad  terms  with  logic !  I  think  it  is  on  no 
better  terms  with  him !  He  says,  "  Again :  either  the  finally 
impenitent  will  deserve  eternal  punishment  for  then*  sins,  or 
they  will  not.  If  not,  the  penalty  of  God's  law,  which  will 
be  executed  upon  them,  is  unjust;  if  so,  Mr.  Foster  rep- 
resents it  as  horrible  that  God  should  do  what  is  perfectly 
just."  What  is  this  argument  intended  and  competent  to 
prove?  This :  that  the  final  destruction  of  the  impenitent 
will  be  perfectly  just.  Who  has  ever  questioned  this  ?  No 
Arminian.     Not  a  word  in  my  letters.     On  the  contrary, 


APPENDIX.  299 

1  contend  that  the  damnation  of  the  finally  impenitent  will 
be  perfectly  just;  and,  because  it  will,  I  contend  that 
Calvinism  is  totally  false.  The  gentleman  supplies  me  with 
a  premise  which  overthrows  his  system.  Here  is  my  argu- 
ment :  the  damnation  of  the  finally  impenitent  is  perfectly 
just.  But  if  that  damnation  were  for  a  cause  over  which 
the  subject  of  it  had  no  possible  control,  then  it  would  be 
unjust;  for  it  would  be  damnation  for  not  performing  an 
impossibility.  But  Calvinism  teaches  that  the  sinner's 
damnation  is  for  sins  which  he  had  no  power  to  avoid; 
hence,  that  it  is  unjust.  Therefore,  Calvinism  is  false, 
because  it  makes  the  sinner's  damnation  unjust.  Doctor, 
try  your  hand  on  this  logic :  see  how  it  suits  you. 

He  next  takes  up  my  third  objection,  "  that  the  doctrine 
makes  God  a  partial  being,  and  destroys  entirely  the  foun- 
dation for  the  doctrine  of  grace;"  and  he  absolutely/  refers 
to  my  letter!  He  says,  "See  Letter  VHI!"  but  where 
shall  his  readers  find  it  ?  He  is  too  shrewd  to  show  them 
any  part  of  it !  He  never  would  have  told  them  to  see  it, 
only  he  knew  that  most  of  them  could  not,  and  that  his 
reference  would  seem  to  imply  a  willingness  on  his  part, 
if  it  were  possible — a  show  of  confidence.  To  the  objec- 
tion, that  his  doctrine  makes  God  a  partial  being,  ne 
attempts  an  answer,  by  giving  AValker's  definition  of  par- 
tial: "A  partial  being  is  one  who  is  inclined  to  favor 
one  party  or  person  above  another  without  reason."  He 
denies  that  God  favors  one  above  another  without  a  rea- 
6on.  My  readers  must  judge  of  this  themselves,  see- 
ing what  the  system  actually  teaches,  namely,  that  God 
viewed  all  men  as  sinners,  without  a  particle  of  difference 
between  them — in  all  respects  exactly  alike;  and  thus 
beholding  them,  he  chose  A.,  B.,  C,  and  D.  to  eternal 
life,  and  consigned  E.,  F.,  G.,  and  H.  to  an  eternal  hell. 
Now,  if  this  does  not  imply  partiality,  then  I  admit  Cal- 
vinism does  not  make  God   partial — he  has  not  favored 


300  '   APPENDIX. 

one  person  above  another  without  reasons,  such  as  acquit 
him  from  partiahty — he  has  been  equally  kind  to  all.  It 
is  a  plain  case :  you  will  judge  for  yourselves. 

He  next  attempts  to  show  that  the  difficulty  lies  against 
Methodism.  Noav,  if  he  could  sustain  this,  he  does  not 
help  his  own  case;  and  his  attempt  shows  evidence  of 
conscious  weakness.  He  denies  that  his  creed  shows  par- 
tiality in  God.  He  then  endeavors  to  show  that  Meth- 
odism is  as  liable  as  himself;  but  what  he  charges  to 
Methodism  he  believes,  and  much  more :  how  then  can  he 
pretend  that  Methodism  is  guilty,  when  he  assumes  that 
he  is  not  ?  But  his  attempt  to  involve  Methodism  in  this, 
as  in  the  former  case,  is  fruitless.  The  particular  in  his 
creed,  on  which  we  base  the  charge  of  partiality,  Meth- 
odists do  not  believe.  If  the  charge  lays  against  it  justly, 
it  does  not  lay  against  Methodists,  for  Methodists  do  not 
embrace  it.  If  there  are  other  things  which  the  Metho- 
dists do  believe,  in  common  with  Calvinists,  against  which 
the  charge  of  partiality  justly  lays,  then  my  objection  is 
still  true,  for  the  Calvinists  are  guilty  with  the  Methodists. 
But  I  defy  the  gentleman  to  sustain  the  charge  against 
Methodism,  even  in  common  with  himself — ^much  more  do 
I  defy  him  to  escape  the  odium  of  the  charge,  as  bearing 
specially  against  the  doctrine  of  Calvinian  election  and 
reprobation.  The  gentleman  asks,  in  view  of  the  fact 
admitted  by  all,  that  there  is  a  manifest  difference  in  the 
condition  of  men  and  nations,  "How  great  a  difference 
may  God  make  before  he  is  chargeable  with  partiahty?" 
He  asks  this  question  as  though  he  thought  it  would  be 
difficult  to  answer,  and  as  if  it  bore  more  upon  others  than 
himself.  I  will  answer  it  for  him.  God,  as  an  impartial 
being,  is  bound  to  deal  with  all  men  upon  the  same  great, 
immutable  principles  of  wisdom,  goodness,  and  justice — 
never  to  deal  unwisely,  unkindly,  or  unjustly  by  any  one — 
not  to  be  influenced  by  one  set  of  principles  toward  one, 


APPENDIX.  301 

and  another  set  toward  another.  If  the  gentleman  will 
show  that  such  is  not  the  fact,  he  will  show  that  God  is  a 
partial  being.  I  have  shown  that  his  system  teaches  that 
such  is  not  the  fact,  and,  hence,  that  it  is  liable  to  the 
charge  of  making  God  partial. .  If  he  will  show  any  thing 
in  Methodism  that  renders  us  liable,  he  will  involve  us, 
together  with  himself,  but  will  not  relieve  himself  in  the 
slightest  degree.  The  point  for  Dr.  Rice,  at  present,  is 
either  to  admit  the  truth  of  my  charge  or  escape  from  it. 
But  he  never  will  do  either. 

I  could  wish,  for  the  sake  of  Dr.  Rice's  reputation,  and 
the  edification  of  our  readers,  that  he  would,  in  a  more 
sturdy  manner,  meet  arguments ;  but  I  suppose  this  is  like 
requiring  impossibilities,  and  I  must  not  do  this.  The  char- 
acter of  his  replies  must  explain  the  style  of  my  rejoinders. 

NUMBER    VIII. 

In  the  first  part  of  this  letter,  the  Doctor  continues  to 
urge  that  Methodists  are  not  free  from  difficulties  on  the 
subject  of  election.  To  this  I  paid  sufficient  attention  in 
my  last  letter,  as  it  forms  no  part  of  the  present  issue. 
Indeed,  as  yet  I  see  no  occasion  to  vindicate  our  views  upon 
this  subject— his  remarks  are  so  perfectly  harmless.  When 
we  see  Methodism  trembling  under  potent  assault,  we  might 
even  turn  aside  from  the  point  in  debate  to  defend  it;  but 
w^e  cannot  be  decoyed  without  something  more  serious  than 
has  yet  been  submitted.  Our  apprehensions  are  yet  all 
asleep. 

The  Doctor  continues:  "Mr.  Foster,  in  his  ninth  letter, 
presses  with  great  earnestness  the  objection,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  election  is  inconsistent  with  all  those  passages  of 
Scripture  which  teach  that  Christ  died  for  all  men.  Now, 
he  ought  to  know  that  the  word  for,  like  all  other  preposi- 
tions, has  a  number  of  meanings.  What,  then,  does  he 
mean,  when  he  affirms  that  Christ  died  for  all  men?  Does 
he  mean,  simply,  that  the  atonement  made  by  Christ  is 


302  APPENDIX. 

sufficient  to  save  all  men,  if  they  would  believe?  If  so, 
we  heartily  agree  with  him.  Does  he  mean  that  God  de- 
signed freely  to  offer  salvation  to  all  men,  without  distinc- 
tion, through  the  atonement  ?  If  so,  we  have  no  controversy 
with  him."  To  the  above  interrogations,  abating  the  word 
simply,  as  it  occurs  in  them,  I  will  answer,  yes.  We  believe 
that,  in  this  sense,  Christ  died  for  all.  But  we  believe 
more  than  this.  But,  as  our  faith  is,  not  the  matter  in 
controversy,  we  need  not  name  it.  It  is  known  of  all  men ; 
it  has  no  equivocations;  it  ^  simple  and  one.  We  are 
under  no  necessity  to  resort  to  far-fetched  explanations  to 
protect  it,  or  make  it  understood.  But  I  shall  now  show 
you  what  difficulty  he  has  involved  himself  in  by  his  ad- 
missions. He  states  just  what  I  stated  for  him,  in  my 
regular  letter  on  this  point;  and  all  the  difficulties  there 
named  bear  against  him,  and  I  defy  the  gentleman  to 
escape  them.  Corroborating  the  statement  above,  and  im- 
mediately following  it,  he  says:  "The  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  election  is,  1.  The  atonement  of  Christ  is  of  infinite 
value.  2  .  Salvation,  through  Christ,  is  freely  offered  to 
all."  He  admits  these  two  propositions.  But,  now,  mark : 
lie  believes,  3.  That  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect,  in  the 
eternal  purpose  of  God — in  other  words,  that  his  death 
was  limited,  in  the  design  of  God,  to  a  part  of  mankind, 
and  did  not  extend  to  the  rest,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  make 
their  salvation  possible  under  the  circumstances.  I  def}' 
the  gentleman  to  deny  this  statement.  He  dares  not  do  it 
He  dares  not  say  that  Christ  died  for  all  men  in  such 
manner,  all  the  circumstances  included,  as  to  make  their 
salvation  possible.  Will  he  come  out  here?  Here  is  the 
precise  point  where  we  call  upon  him  for  light. 

But,  now,  mark  the  difficulties  resulting  from  his  admis- 
sions. "  He  believes  that  the  atonement  is  of  infinite  value, 
sufficient  for  all,  if  they  would  believe,"  What  does  the 
gentleman  mean,  when  he  says  the  atonement  is  of  infinite 


APPENDIX.  303 

value — is  sufficient  for  all?  Does  he  mean  that  it  was 
sufficient  to  remove  all  the  hinderances  in  the  way  of  tho 
salvation  of  all  ? — that  it  was  competent  to  save  all  ?  Then 
the  question  arises,  why  does  it  not  save  all?  The  gentle- 
man must  answer,  because  it  was  not  desicfned  for  all ;  the 
limitation,  then,  is  in  the  design  of  God.  Is  this  so?  then 
the  damnation  of  some  arises  purely  from  the  sovereign 
design,  or  will  of  God,  that  they  should  be  damned.  Look 
at  this.  There  was  a  sufficient  atonement  for  all ;  nothing 
more  was  necessary.  But  God,  of  his  own  will,  limited 
what  was  sufficient  for  all  to  a  part.  Is  it  withheld  from 
any?  it  is  because  it  is  the  will  of  God.  Are  they  con-^ 
sequently  damned?  it  is  because  it  is  the  will  of  God. 
But,  again:  what  does  he  mean  when  he  says,  "if  they 
would  believe?"  Does  he  know  and  teach  that  they  cannot 
believe,  because  Christ  did  not  die  for  them  ?  Wh}^,  then, 
does  he  speak  of  faith  in  them  as  possible,  "if  they  would 
believe,"  when  he  knows  they  cannot?  That  very  want  of 
faith  is,  according  to  his  creed,  the  proof  that  Christ  did 
not  die  for  them.  His  death  was  sufficient,  but  it  never 
was  intended  for  them;  God  limited  it  to  these,  not  to 
them.  It  was  no  more  possible  to  the  reprobates  than  to 
the  devils;  it  was  no  more  an  atonement  for  them,  than  it 
was  for  the  devils.  Now,  Dr.  Rice,  no  dodging  here.  If 
you  have  the  courage,  come  out  and  meet  this  point  can- 
didly, and  in  such  a  way,  as  to  show  where  you  stand. 
Sir,  at  the  risk  of  being  called  immodest,  I  say,  you  will  not 
dare  to  defend  your  ground  here.  You  cannot  escape  by 
an  old  trick — and  it  is  well  to  remind  you  of  it — by  saying 
that  they  are  not  saved  because  of  unbelief.  For,  accord- 
ing to  your  system,  the  very  reason  why  they  do  not  believe, 
is,  Christ  did  not  die  for  them.  Their  unbelief  is  an  effect 
of  the  previous  cause,  that  they  were  not  atoned  for — the 
first  cause  why  they  are  not  saved  is  the  want  of  an  atone- 
ment for  them. 


J?04  APPENDIX. 

And  now,  sir,  we  come  to  the  second  point:  "Salvation 
is  freelj  offered  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel."  You  believe 
all  are  invited  to  come  to  Christ.  I  ask,  how  they  can  be 
invited  to  come,  when  Christ  did  not  die  for  them;  you 
answer,  "All  may  come,  and  all  are,  therefore,  invited." 
Now,  here,  again,  I  urge  you,  by  your  love  of  truth  and 
consistency,  to  meet  this  point  openly  and  fairly.  You  say 
that  "all  are  invited  to  come  to  Christ,  because  all  may 
come."  Dr.  Rice,  hear  me  patiently,  when  I  say  you  do 
not  believe  this  proposition ;  you  cannot;  you  have  imposed 
upon  yourself.  In  your  zeal  to  reconcile  your  creed  with 
the  Scriptures  which  antagonize  it,  you  have  overstepped 
yourself — not  intentionally,  but  certainly.  This  will  appear 
to  yourself,  if  you  will  attempt  to  answer  to  yourself — and 
I  should  like  for  you  to  answer  them  to  the  public — a  few 
questions.  Is  it  possible  for  all  men  to  come  to  Christ  and 
be  saved?  If  you  answer,  yes,  then  it  must  be  possible 
for  all  men  to  have  the  will  to  come;  for  no  man  can 
come  without  the  will,  and  if  any  cannot  have  the  will  to 
come,  they  cannot  come.  But  you  do  not  believe  it  possi- 
ble for  all  to  have  the  will  to  come,  unless  you  believe 
that  it  is  possible  for  some  to  have  a  will  different  from  that 
which  they  actually  have,  under  the  circumstances,  which 
you  know  is  not  your  faith.  But,  again :  do  you  not  believe 
thatj  though  the  atonement  is  sufficient  for  all  in  itself,  yet 
that  it  is  limited,  in  the  design  of  God,  to  a  part — and  that 
another  part  are  passed  by,  to  whom  it  is  not  purposed  to 
be  applied  ?  To  this  you  must  answer,  yes.  Well,  if  it  is 
limited,  in  the  design  of  God,  to  a  part,  can  those  to  whom 
it  is  not  extended  ever  enjoy  it  ?  If  you  say,  yes,  then  the 
design  of  God  must  change  or  fail.  If  you  say,  no,  then 
you  admit  they  cannot  come.  But,  again:  do  you  not 
believe  that  the  atonement  is  sovereignly  applied  to  those 
for  whom  it  was  made,  before  t\\Qj  can  come  to  Christ,  m 
their  regeneration?     You  must  answer,  yes.     Well,  then, 


APPENDIX.  305 

can  those  to  whom  it  is  not  thus  applied  come  to  him  ?  If 
you  say,  yes,  you  say  a  man  may  turn  himself  to  God  and 
be  saved;  if  you  say,  no,  you  say  that  none  but  those  tc 
whom  it  is  sovereignly  applied  can  come. 

But,  again :  some  of  the  human  race  will  finally  be  lost. 
Do  you  believe  that  those  persons,  who  will  so  be  lost, 
ever  had  the  power  to  come  to  Christ  and  be  saved,  undei 
the  circumstances  and  influences  in  which  they  were  placed  ? 
If  you  answer,  yes,  then  you  admit  that  their  salvation  was 
in  their  own  power,  and  might  have  been  achieved  by  their 
own  exertions.  If  you  answer,  no,  you  admit  that  these 
persons  never  could  come  to  Christ. 

But,  again:  you  believe  that  a  definite  number  of  the 
human  race  were  elected  unto  everlasting  life,  and  a  definite 
number  not  elected.  Now,  answer  me  this  question:  do 
you  believe  that  any  but  the  elect  can  be  saved?  You 
must  answer  me,  no  or  yes.  If  yes,  then  a  man  may  be 
saved  whom  God  passed  by,  and  never  chose  to  be  saved ; 
if  no,  then  those  passed  by  could  not,  cannot,  come  to 
Christ,  to  be  saved ;  the  thing  is  impossible. 

If  you  still  say  the  thing  is  impossible,  because  of  the 
will,  I  charge  you,  as  you  dread  to  mislead  and  deceive  the 
ignorant,  that  you  say,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  will  to 
come  is  not  possible  to  the  creature  unless  it  is  given ;  and 
it  is  only  given  to  those  for  whom  Christ  died,  and,  there- 
fore, that  those  who  have  not  the  will,  have  it  not  because 
Christ  did  not  die  for  them. 

Sir,  you  know,  that  those  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die, 
m  the  2'>urpose  of  God,  cannot  come  to  him.  How,  then,  I 
ask  you,  in  the  name  of  all  that  a  Christian,  above  all,  a 
Christian  minister,  should  hold  dear — how  can  you  say  you 
invite  them,  because  they  may  come?  There  is  a  feast 
spread  for  a  thousand  guests,  but  is  designed  for  only 
five  hundred  particular  persons:  it  is  impossible  that  any 
others  should  come.  These  five  hundred  are  vonder,  in  au 
26 


306  APPENDIX. 

assemblage  of  a  thousand.  Now,  how  can  the  master  of 
the  feast  send  his  servant  to  mvite  the  thousand,  without 
the  charge  of  insincerity  ?  Again :  suppose  that,  of  the  one 
thousand,  the  five  hundred  for  whom  the  feast  is  not  in- 
tended are  chained,  so  that  they  cannot  move  until  the 
master  of  the  feast  unloose  them — ^how  can  they  be  invited 
to  come  without  sheer  mockery?  The  cases  are  precisely 
analogous  if  you  add,  that,  for  not  complying  with  the  base, 
heartless  invitation,  those  who  refuse  are  to  be  doomed  to 
nameless  tortures! 

But  if  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  why  are  reprobates 
commanded  lo  beheve?  Dr.  Rice  undertakes  to  answer 
this  question  He  says,  "  Because  it  is  their  duty  to  be- 
lieve." Let  us  look  at  this.  What  is  it  that  is  required 
of  the  reprobates  ?  To  believe  on  Jesus  Christ,  in  order  to 
salvation.  This,  Dr.  Rice  says,  is  their  duty.  Now,  if 
Jesus  Christ  did  not,  in  the  design  of  God,  die  for  these 
persons,  which  Dr.  Rice  contends  is  the  fact,  then  it  is  cer- 
tain he  is  not  their  Savior — he  has  no  salvation  for  them. 
If  he  has,  it  is  contrary  to  the  design  of  God ;  but  if  he 
has  not,  then.  Dr.  Rice  says,  it  is  the  duty  of  reprobates  to 
believe  a  lie ;  and,  for  not  believing  a  lie,  they  are  damned ! 
Will  the  gentleman  inform  us  how  he  escapes  this  ?  But, 
further,  if  it  is  the  duty  of  reprobates  to  believe  in  Christ, 
they  either  can  believe,  or  they  cannot.  If  they  can,  they 
may  come  to  Christ ;  and  they  will  be  either  saved  or  not. 
If  they  will  be  saved,  they  will  be  saved  by  beheving  a  he, 
and  by  a  Savior  who  never  died  for  them ;  if  not,  they  will 
faisify  Dr.  Rice's  creed  and  the  Scriptures,  which  equally 
teach  that  whosoever  believeth  shall  be  saved !  Will  the 
Doctor  help  us  here  ?  If  they  are  not  able  to  beheve  in 
Christ,  and  yet  it  is  made  their  duty  to  believe  in  hun, 
then  it  is  made  their  duty  to  do  an  impossibiUty ;  and  if 
they  are  damned  for  not  performing  their  duty,  they  are 
damned  for  not  doing  an  impossibility ! 


APPENDIX.  307 

What  a  most  remarkable  sentence  is  the  following,  to 
come  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Rice !  "  Since  salvation  is  freely 
offered  to  all,  and  all  are  free  to  accept  or  reject  it,  there  is 
no  inconsistency  in  inviting  all,  and  no  injustice  in  the  con- 
demnation of  those  who  abide  in  unbelief."  Look  at  this. 
If  salvation  is  freely  offered  to  all,  and  if  Christ  did  not  die 
for  all,  then  salvation  is  freely  offered  to  some  for  whom 
there  is  no  salvation,  or  else  there  is  salvation  for  some  for 
whom  Christ  did  not  die !  What  an  offer  is  this !  Is  it  not 
hypocritical  and  empty  ?  Can  it  be  any  thing  else  ?  And 
who  makes  it?     The  God  worshiped  by  Dr.  Rice! 

But,  again:  are  all  free  to  accept  it?  Then  are  some 
free  to  accept  what  has  no  existence!  What  absurdities 
beset  this  most  miserable  system  at  every  point!  When 
will  Dr.  Rice  extricate  himself  from  the  diflBculties  he  has 
thus  invested  himself  with  ?  Never !  He  will  not  try — he 
knows  the  thing  is  impossible!  But  this  comes  of  his 
fruitless  effort  so  far.  It  is  now  proved  by  himself,  that 
my  statements  of  his  creed  were  true  and  correct,  and  that 
the  difficulties  alledged  are  insuperable. 

The  Doctor  proceeds  to  state,  in  his  bland  and  Christian 
manner,  that  "  a  more  outrageous  misrepresentation  of 
Calvinism  was  never  made — more  glaring  injustice  to 
authors  was  never  done.  Our  business  has  been  that  of 
correction  much  more  than  argument ;  for  the  correction  of 
misrepresentations  is  the  best  answer  to  arguments  founded 
upon  them."  Now,  to  this  statement  I  find  but  one  objec- 
tion. Its  style  and  spirit,  of  course,  are  unobjectionable! 
Shall  I  say  commendable  ?  The  objection  I  make  is  this : 
it  is  quite  a  small  matter — it  only  relates  to  one  word — ^the 
Doctor,  I  think,  will  admit  it,  and  then  it  will  be  a  fine 
paragraph.  Let  him  strike  out  the  word  correction,  and 
substitute  assertion;  then  it  will  be  perfect.  It  will  read, 
"  My  business  has  been  that  of  assertion  much  more  than 
argument."    That  is  true,  Doctor.    No  one  who  has  been  at 


308  APPENDIX. 

the  pains  to  read  your  singular  replies,  will  doubt  it  for  a 
moment.  But  as  for  con-ections,  I  have  yet  to  find  a  single 
one.  I  defy  you,  sir,  to  name  it.  You  have  rej)eatedly 
asserted  that  I  misrepresented  you,  but,  sir,  you  have  nci. 
corrected  one  of  my  statements;  unless  you  consider  your 
assertions  corrections !     I  suppose  this  is  your  meaning. 

In  closing  up  this  volume,  I  cannot  avoid  expressing 
astonishment,  that  Calvinism  should  find  favor  and  ad- 
vocacy with  wise  and  good  men.  It  is  most  strange  that 
it  should  be  so.  No  system  is  so  encompassed  with  serious 
difficulties.  It  is  not  less  beset  with  contradictions  than 
Atheism  itself.  It  is  less  defensible  than  Deism  or  Univer- 
salism.  Bhnd,  universal  skepticism  would  be  a  refuge  to 
reason  and  religion  compared  with  it.  Let  it  be  under- 
stood, we  now  speak  of  Calvinism  proper — not  of  the 
systems  of  faith  in  which  it  is  included — not  of  the  com- 
munities embracing  it.  Calvinism,  in  the  creeds  of  the 
various  Churches  entertaining  it,  is  surrounded  with  many 
wholesome  and  saving  truths — with,  indeed,  whatever  is 
essential  to  be  believed ;  but  itself  is  an  unmitigated  blotch. 

This  is  the  reason  why  an  effort  is  always  made  by  its 
advocates  to  disguise  it — to  explain  it  away — to  mystify  it. 
This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  reserved  for  special  occasions — 
why  it  is  kept  for  the  study,  not  for  the  pulpit — why, 
when  persons  become  troubled  on  account  of  it,  they  are 
told  th'i  it  is  not  a  suitable  subject  for  them  to  seek  to 
understand — ^why  it  is  not  made  a  condition  of  member- 
ship in  the  Church — why,  in  a  word,  it  has  been  debated 
by  its  defenders  whether  or  not  it  ought  to  be  preached. 
This  is  the  reason  why  Dr.  Rice  has  been  so  anxious  to 
escape  from  its  examination — why  he  has  perpetually  de- 
claimed about  our  misrepresentation — why  he  has  avoided 
to  discuss  the  case  upon  its  merits.  He  knows  full  well 
it  will  not  bear  the  light — that  it  can  only  be  kept  in 
countenance  by  keeping  the   deceptive  cover  on  it — that 


APPENDIX.  309 

to  stacc  it  is  to  damn  it.  Hence  his  fruitless  attempt  at 
defense.  His  abilities — great,  confessedly — liave  failed  him 
in  the  support  of  such  a  cause.  The  cause  has  put  him  to 
shame. 

It  has  been  no  pleasure,  but,  on  the  contrary,  extremely 
painful  to  me,  to  make  the  plain  statements  contained  in 
the  foregoing  pages.  Nothing  but  a  provocation,  which 
it  would  have  been  unchristian  to  endure  longer,  could 
have  induced  it — unchristian,  because  truth  and  righteous- 
ness were  suffering,  and  likely  to  suffer  more  by  silence. 
We  would  have  been  content  to  let  this  controversy  slum- 
ber for  ever,  leaving  truth  to  work  out  error  by  a  peaceable 
process,  which  it  was  doing>  rather  than  to  have  caused 
pain  to  a  single  disciple  of  Christ — ^much  more,  rather  than 
to  involve  two  large  Christian  bodies  in  unpleasant  conflict. 
We  were  willing  for  our  friends  to  hold  their  opinions, 
though  we  believed  them  erroneous,  rather  than  to  insult 
and  wound  them,  and  provoke  unkind  feelings  between 
those  who  ought  to  be  friends,  leaving  time  and  progress 
to  correct  them.  But  nothing  would  do  but  controversy. 
We,  therefore,  reluctantly  yielded  to  the  necessity.  We 
have  spoken  plainly,  that  we  might  be  understood,  and 
sometimes,  it  would  seem,  severely;  but  God  is  our  wit- 
ness, we  have  not  intended  to  be  unkind — we  do  not  feel 
it  in  our  hearts.  We  do  not  call  in  question  the  piety  of 
our  opponents.  They  hold  much  truth.  Many  of  them 
have  been,  in  the  Church,  high  and  shining  lights.  But  as 
the  sun  may  have  its  spots,  and  yet  be  brilliant,  so  may 
the  wise  and  good  err  in  judgment.  We  love  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  will  still  try  to  love  it,  and  the 
reverend  Doctor  with  whom  we  have  been  engaged,  just 
as  well  as  though  nothing  had  passed. 

We  believe  them  in  error,  and  have  given  our  reasons; 
but  we  claim  no  infaUibility — we  dogmatize  our  opinions 
upon   nobody — they  are  uttered  only  in  self-defense,  and 


810  APPENDIX. 

in  defense  of  what  we  believe  to  be  truth.  Our  readers 
will  judge  for  themselves  of  the  merits  of  the  perform- 
ance. And,  now,  may  God  bless  our  humble  endeavors 
to  do  good,  and  bring  both  writer  and  reader  to  that 
world,  where  we  shall  see  as  we  are  seen,  and  know  as 
we  are  known!    Amen. 


THB   SND. 


Date  Due 

S  '•  - 

. 

V. 

/ 

1 

i.i«w*«»*^ 

f 

^ 

,   K^V<''»^ 

* 

JUN3I 

I2t50!' 

MAY  0  8 

?on4 

i 

^Ris; 

!00S 

i 

^ 

• 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer 


1    1012  01002  9397 


